Sitting of 12 August 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  King's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
  RUGBY WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]. (NOT AMENDED.)
  Considered; to be read the third time.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  [UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
  Read a second time; to be considered to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill, the Standing Orders be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time. (Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Ordered, That the Sanding Orders be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Loch Leven Water Power Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to—
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords];
  Leeds Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords];
  South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords];
  Stratton and Bude Improvement Bill [Lords]: without amendment.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petitions for alteration of law, from Dunston and Metheringham; Knuzden; and Lincoln; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Cotton Spinners and Cotton. Manufacturers of Lancashire; and Flax Spinners and Linen Manufacturers of Ireland; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Rotherhithe; and South Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL AND ROYAL DECLARATION BILL.
  Petition from Tewkesbury against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education, 1900–1901. Vol. I. The Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education, 1900–1901. Vol. II. Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education, 1900–1901. Vol. III. Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 8th August, 1901, entitled the East

  411
  Africa (Lands) Order in Council, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT, 1881, AND FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 8th August, 1901, applying the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to certain South African Colonies and Protectorates [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-third Annual Report of the Registrar General, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1900–1901.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th August; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 328.]
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented of General Report and Statistics for the year 1900; Part II., Labour; General Report and Statistics relating to persons employed and accidents at Mines and Quarries in the United Kingdom, and to the enforcement of the Mines and Quarries Acts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 6th August; Mr. Jesse Collings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 329.]
  LUNACY (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Forty-third Annual Report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1901, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  INLAND REVENUE.
  Copy presented, of Forty-fourth Report of the Commissioners for the year ended
  412
  31st March, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Copy presented, of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Value of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1900–1901, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other payments connected with Capital Liabilities (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C. 350] of Session 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE.
  Copy presented, of Forty-seventh Report of the Postmaster General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CUSTOMS.
  Copy presented, of Forty-fifth Report of the Commissioners of Customs for the year ended 31st March, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ENGLISH, SCOTCH, AND IRISH LOANS WRITTEN OFF.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th August; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 330.]
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Copy presented, of Administration Report on the Railways in India for the year 1900, by F. R. Upcott, Esquire, C.S.I., Secretary to the Government of India, Public Works Department, Railways [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Fiftieth Report, with Appendices, of Inspectors of Lunatics (Ireland) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (GALWAY).
  Copy presented, of Report of the President for the Session 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) OFFICIALS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th March; Mr. Wyndham]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 331.]
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st July; Mr. Patrick O'Brien]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 332.]
  COUNTY COURT VALUERS (IRELAND)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st August; Mr. Jordan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 333.]
  RAILWAY AND HARBOUR GUARANTEES (KERRY).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August: Mr. Thomas O'Donnell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 334.]
  ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th August; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 335.]

  COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES, 1901.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th August; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 336.]

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5

  6.

  7.

  Date when Closure moved.

  By whom moved.

  Questions before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 331, of Session I. of 1900).'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 337.].
  2. Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 338.]
  3. Inquiry into Charities (County of Montgomery).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 339.]
  4. Charitable Endowments (London).Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 340.]

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 17.
  Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any division taken thereon during Session II. of 1900 and the Session of 1901 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper No. 329, of Session I. of 1900)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 25).
  Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session II. of 1900 and the Session of 1901, under the following heads:—
  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in Session II. of 1900 and in the Session of 1901; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also, the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.207 of Session I. of 1900)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session II. of 1900 and during the Session of 1901; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.215, of Session I. of 1900)'."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session II. of 1900 and in the Session of 1901; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.216, of Session I. of 1900)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1901, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select
  416
  Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.214, of Session I. of 1900).'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in Session II. of 1900 and in the Session of 1901, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.217, of Session I. of 1900)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing, with reference to Session II. of 1900 and the Session of 1901, (1) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a special Order of the House; (5) the number of Saturday Sittings; (6) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (7) the total number of days on which the House sat; (8) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 331, of Session I. of 1900).'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for

  417
  confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1901, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tram-roads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water: Gas; Gas and Water; Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Pocks: Churches, Chapels; and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; Naturalisation; and Miscellaneous.
  "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in the Session of 1901 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed.
  "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in the Session of 1900, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended.
  " And, of the number of Private Bills' Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped
  418
  during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No, 0.213, of Session I. of 1900)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute, dated the 9th day of August, 1901, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil Servants have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of 65, and of the Return therein referred to."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—TRANSVAAL MINING CONTRACTS AND LEASES.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that a proclamation was issued on or about the 4th July by Lord Kitchener, as Administrator of the Transvaal Colony, declaring in substance that where parties possessed of mineral rights in the Transvaal under contracts or leases made before the outbreak of the war have been prevented from fulfilling their obligations under such contracts or leases owing to the state of war, such parties shall be released from their obligations under such contracts or leases from the outbreak of war until a date to be fixed; whether he will lay the proclamation upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY Of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The proclamation shall be laid.

  EXECUTIONS OF REBELS—COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE OF BURGHERS.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now state whether inhabitants of Middel-burg and Cradock were compelled by the military authorities to attend at the promulgation of the death sentences upon Marais and Coetze, respectively; whether leading residents of the same towns were compelled to witness the

  419
  execution of these two men; whether the orders enforcing attendance on these occasions were addressed to any residents of British blood in these towns; and whether any, and, if so, what penalties were theatened for disobedience to the above orders.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I have no information at present on these subjects, but I hope it will very shortly arrive.

  LORD KITCHENER'S DESPATCHES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office why copies of the despatches from Lord Kitchener as to the conduct of the war, which have appeared in the newspapers as parliamentary Papers, have not been distributed among Members, and are still unobtainable at the Vote Office?
  *LORD STANLEY: I do not know, but I have asked for information on the subject. I hope to let the right hon. Baronet know in the course of the evening.

  CENSORSHIP—FREEMAN'S JOURNAL CORRESPONDENT.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the letters and articles sent by Mr. J. J. Comerford, as correspondent of the Freeman's Journal in South Africa, posted weekly at Cradock during February and March, 1900, with two exceptions, were never received; and that, on Mr. Comerford making complaint to the Chief Military Press Censor in Pretoria of the seizure of his letters and articles, Major Sawyer was directed to investigate the matter, but on his making inquiries at Cradock he was suddenly transferred to another station, and no further step in the investigation was taken; and, having regard to the fact that Mr. Comerford has addressee repeatedly letters to the Chief Military Press Censor on this matter, and has received no reply, whether any, and if so what steps will be taken to restore to this gentleman the photographs and manu-
  420
  scripts seized in transmission through the post, or to compensate him for the loss of his literary work as a journalist not at the seat of war and not holding a military licence.
  *LORD STANLEY: I will inquire into, this matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not the noble Lord a press censor?
  *LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir.

  GERMAN MADE EIELD GUNS.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say how many of the 108 field guns, purchased from the Rheinische Metal Waarenfabrik have been issued, how many remain in store, and how many of those issued have broken down; and having regard to the fact that such breakdowns have occurred during ordinary field battery drill, when guns and limbers were subjected to no such strain as would be thrown upon them on active service, whether any conditions and tests as to the quality of the material supplied, such as are invariably imposed on manufacturers at home, were imposed on the German company; and whether guns of identical pattern made by the same firm are in use in the German or any other Continental army.
  *LORD STANLEY: Of the eighteen batteries bought, fifteen are in the hands of the troops. No guns have broken down; defects have been found in the carriages, but have been put right. One brigade division has completed its annual practice at Imaal with perfectly satisfactory results. The batteries were under inspection during manufacture. It is believed that guns of this pattern are under trial by several European Powers, but none have yet decided to adopt them.

  UNDER AGE RECRUITS—CASE OF HENRY MELLON.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Member for North Aberdeen, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the case

  421
  of the boy Henry Mellon, who was accepted as a recruit for the Royal Highlanders when only fifteen years of age, and who after being kept almost continually marching in South Africa was found asleep from physical exhaustion when on duty, if he can state who was the officer responsible for his acceptance, and if any reprimand has been made for the enlistment of a lad nearly three years under the regulation enlistment age of eighteen; whether the Government are aware that boys of fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen years of age are induced to leave their parents and to enlist by recruiting sergeants who desire to secure the Government bounty irrespective of the real age of the lad; and, in the interests of recruiting and of the parents and the lads concerned, and to prevent danger to military efficiency from immature lads being enlisted as men, whether the Government will introduce a check to such a system of recruiting. May I at the same time ask if arrangements can be made to let this boy visit his parents for a few days before being again sent to South Africa.
  *LORD STANLEY: I know nothing as to that. In answer to the question on the Paper, I have to say that this soldier gave his age on enlistment as eighteen years three months, and as he was 5 feet 4¼ inches in height and nearly 34 inches across the chest, no one could possibly be blamed for accepting his statement. Further, no application (as far as I can ascertain) for his discharge as under age has ever been made. I am not aware of any such action as alleged against recruiting sergeants in the last paragraph.

  ARMY SERVICE CORPS—WAR REWARDS.
  MR. CHANGING: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed to reward by a step in rank or otherwise the warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Army Service Corps who have gained distinction in the war and received special mention in despatches.
  *LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir, as far as possible.

  RETIRED ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS' TITLES.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider the advisability of abolishing the compound titles of retired Army medical officers.
  *LORD STANLEY: This question has been very carefully considered, and it was not held advisable to abolish the compound titles except in the case of retired officers who were recalled or re-employed.

  CIVIL SURGEONS WITH THE ARMY.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if civil surgeons now serving with His Majesty's Army in Great Britain and Ireland are entitled to an increase of salary after three years service, and also to a gratuity of £100 on completion of their engagement.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. They are not so entitled, but the question of the increase of salary is receiving consideration.

  VOLUNTEER CAMP GRANTS.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the order issued by the War Office which makes it compulsory for every individual volunteer to attend camp for a week at least every two years, and to the loss this will entail on the poorer section of the Volunteer force, he will consider the advisability of granting an increase of pay to these men.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member is evidently unaware that public grants to Volunteer corps take the form of capitation grants to the corps and not of pay to the individual man. In order to cover the extra cost of the longer attendance in camp the capitation grants were this year increased.

  DESTITUTE VETERANS—CASE OF WILLIAM M'GOWAN.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that William M'Gowan, a man

  423
  upwards of seventy years of age, who served for twenty-five years in the 31st Regiment, and was in the Crimean campaign, and the campaigns in North China in 1860 and in South China in 1863, and is the holder of three medals, is now without a pension or any gratuity whatever from the War Office, and is at present an inmate of the workhouse, Ballyshannon, county Donegal; and will the authorities of the War Office take any, and, if so, what steps to rescue this man, having regard to his long service, from destitution.
  LORD STANLEY: The facts are as stated in the question. The hon. Member is, however, evidently unaware that this man was discharged with ignominy for drunkenness and absence, thus forfeiting all claim to pension, and that he had been previously tried eleven times by court-martial for similar offences and had eighty-seven entries in the regimental defaulters' book. His medals which had been conferred were forfeited owing to his bad conduct. His claim to a pension has been considered by the Chelsea Commissioners, but was rejected owing to the circumstances of his discharge.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then how is it the man was allowed to serve twenty-five years and was awarded three medals?

  COLOURS FOR BATTLESHIPS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in addition to experiments with black, trial has been made of grey paints of the French, United States, or German shades as colours for adoption for the Fleet.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Yes; experiments are being made such as those indicated by the hon. Member, and ships are being—or are about to be—painted grey, and black and grey, with the view of ascertaining what is the best colour for service in time of war.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Paint them khaki.

  COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  424
  State for India whether he can say how long the last Report of the Visitors of the Cooper's Hill College has been presented to his department; whether he will present it to Parliament this session; and, if not, whether he will make sufficient communication to the House as to the recommendations in that Report to enable the subject to be adequately debated upon the Indian Budget.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Report of the Board of Visitors was received on the 12th July, and the instructions to be issued upon the points with which it deals are now under consideration. The Report is lengthy, and its purport is not such as admits of a condensed communication to the House as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

  MOUNTED INFANTRY FOR INDIA.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the amount estimated for cost of buildings and other initial outlay to be incurred in respect of the new scheme for mounted infantry regiments in India; and what is the consequent anticipated annual addition to Indian military expenditure; are any of the British troops while stationed in India to be included under this system of special training; what portion of this mounted infantry will be liable to be called upon for service outside of India; and what proportion of the cost of this addition to the military forces of the Empire will be borne by the British Treasury.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The Government of India has estimated that the cost of accommodation for the mounted infantry will be Rs. 11,75,400, and that the further outlay will be initial Rs. 4,28,337 and recurring Rs. 4,91,088. The mounted infantry will be taken from both British and Native troops, and all might be liable for service outside India under the same conditions as the rest of the Indian Army. No proportion of the cost will be borne by the British Treasury.

  IMMIGRANTS IN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. WILLTAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

  425
  for the Colonies if he can state the nature or form of the educational test proposed to be put in force by the Australian Parliament in reference to immigrants.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the press as to the nature or form of the educational test, if any, which the Commonwealth Government propose to introduce into the law affecting immigration to Australia.

  THIBETAN MISSION TO RUSSIA.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House any information concerning the composition, the aims, and the results of the recent so-called Thibetan Embassy to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has reported that the Thibetan Mission consisted of two envoys, with their suite. The principal member of the Mission was the Llama Akban Dorgiew, who had brought a complimentary letter from the Dalai Llama to the Emperor of Russia. His Excellency was assured by Count Lamsdorff that the Mission had no political or diplomatic character.

  CHINA—TERMS OF SETTLEMENT.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Minister at Peking notified the representatives of the other Powers that he was unable to sign the protocol embodying the terms of settlement; and, if so, whether he can state the reasons for this action.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The final form of the protocol is still under discussion by a Committee of the Peking Conference; it is hoped that an agreement will be arrived at shortly.

  CAIRO FOX-HUNTING INCIDENT.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
  426
  for Foreign Affairs whether a date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal in the case of Mr. Blunt's servants at Cairo, and whether in the meantime the prisoners will be released on bail.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Acting Agent and Consul General at Cairo telegraphed on the 6th instant that the hearing of the appeal had been postponed for a week at the request of the counsel for the defendants. His Majesty's Government have no information to enable them to answer the second part of the question.

  AFRICAN BIG CAME PRESERVES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received any representation from Sir H. Johnston in reference to the tract of country in the neighbourhood of Mount Elgin in which he found quantities of large game; and whether any steps will be taken to preserve this region as a national park, with a view to preventing the extinction of the larger wild animals native to Africa.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: (1) The representation made by Sir H. Johnston on this subject will be found at page 12 of his report laid before Parliament in Africa, No. 7, 1901. (2) Very large regions have already been set apart as reserves in East Africa and Uganda in pursuance of the conclusions of the International Convention for the Preservation of Animals in Africa. The question of enlarging or altering these reserves depends on local considerations.

  VACCINATION—CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that William Venables, of Thornton Hough, was granted an exemption from vaccination as a conscientious objector by the Birken head county magistrates for his first child in June, 1899, and that he was refused exemption by the same court in July, 1901, for another child, then under four months old; and whether

  427
  there is any way in which he can obtain exemption for this child also.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The facts are as stated. It appears that in the second case the applicant failed to satisfy the justices of his conscientious belief that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child in question. It is open to him to apply to any other justice for a certificate of exemption until the child attains the age of four months.

  BOLTON LICENSING APPEAL.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an appeal, heard at the quarter sessions for Bolton held on the 12th ultimo, by the licensee of the Standard Arms beerhouse in that borough against a conviction for selling drink to a drunken person; whether he is aware that the publican was represented by counsel before the appellate tribunal, but that the police who laid and furnished the informationa gainst the house failed to instruct counsel to represent the prosecution on the appeal, and that the Deputy Recorder stated that, in arriving at a decision, he had had the assistance of the other occupants of the bench, who were two borough justices, and of the clerk; and whether, in view of Section 158 (1) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, he will take steps to secure a due observance of the law by the justices of Bolton.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Inquiry is being made into this matter, but on the facts before me I find no ground for action on my part.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING SERVICE COMMITTEE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state anything in reference to the proposed Committee on the Merchant Shipping Service.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, Sir. I am not yet
  428
  in a position to make any definite announcement with regard to the appointment of a Committee.

  FENNY COMPTON SHUNTING FATALITY.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death of George William Cherry, a porter on the Great Western Railway, who was killed at Fenny Compton on Thursday, 1st August, while shunting with a tow rope; and seeing that this death might have been prevented if there had been a second set of points, whether he will state what steps he proposes to take to prevent similar accidents at this station in future.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have ordered an inquiry into the circumstances attending this accident.

  THE "PRIMROSE HILL."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the owners of the "Primrose Hill" have returned to the parents of the twelve apprentices who were drowned in that vessel the premiums which were paid by them; and whether he can take any steps to secure some compensation for the families of the officers and men who also lost their lives in the "Primrose Hill."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that the owners of the "Primrose Hill" have informed me that all the premiums paid for apprentices on that vessel were returned some time ago. The question of compensation for the families of the officers and men who also lost their lives is not one in respect of which I have any power to inter fore.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Take power.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS RETURN.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact

  429
  that the latest annual return of railway accidents shows an increase of forty-seven killed and 116 injured as compared with the previous year; and can he state what steps are being taken by the Board of Trade regulations towards the reduction of accidents on railways.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The figures given by my hon. friend relate to the increase in the total number of railway servants (including servants of contractors) killed and injured on railways and railway premises not only in the course of the movement of traffic but from all causes. The rules already drafted by the Board of Trade under the Act of last year I hope may help to bring about some reduction in the number of accidents occurring in the course of the movement of traffic. The objections to these proposed rules which have been filed by the railway companies are under the consideration of Lord James of Hereford and two officials of the Board of Trade. The Board will use every endeavour to make the draft rules effective as soon as circumstances will allow.
  In reply to a supplementary question by Sir Fortescue Flannery, Mr. GERALD BALFOUR said it was better that the railway companies should agree to the rules than that they should be made the subject of appeals to the Railway Commission.

  AUTOMATIC RAILWAY COUPLINGS.
  SIR FORTESCTJE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is an automatic coupler which can be affixed on the spot to a train of loaded waggons about to start on its journey, which coupler at once substitutes automatic connection for manual; and whether he can state what steps are being taken by the Board of Trade to encourage railway companies towards the more usual adoption of automatic couplings.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to several forms of coupler, automatic and non-automatic, which are said to be readily applicable to existing rolling-stock. The question of the introduction of a suitable coupler
  430
  is receiving the attention of leading railway companies, and experiments are being made. I cannot at present make any statement as to the action which may be taken by the Board of Trade if the companies fail to select a suitable coupler, but I can assure my hon. friend that I shall carefully watch the progress of events.

  MULLER'S ORPHANAGE, BRISTOL.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the recent death of Lilian Mabel Filer, aged nine years, in the charity barrack school, known as Muller's Orphanage, at Bristol, who had died in that institution from cardiac failure without the attendance of a doctor; whether he can state the number of children in that asylum, and the death rate for the last ten years; and, having regard to the number of children living together without a properly qualified doctor on the premises, can he state what steps he proposes to take to induce the authorities to take better care of the children committed to the care of the orphanage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest in the case referred to in the question. I have no information as to the number of children in the orphanage or as to the death rate there. The institution is in no way under my control, and I have no authority to interfere with regard to it.

  POST OFFICES AS SERVANTS' REGISTRIES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in consequence of the increasing scarcity of servants, particularly farm hands, in Great Britain, he has any objection to a list being kept at country post offices of servants wanted in the neighbourhood, the expense being met by a fee of one penny to be paid by those whose applications are placed in the book to be provided at the country post offices.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETAEY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General does not think it desirable to add the business of keeping a registry office for servants to the other functions of the post office.

  REDIRECTION OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that halfpenny circulars are redirected free of charge, but telegrams on which 6d. and 1s. are paid are charged 1d. for redirection; and whether he will abolish this charge on telegrams redirected through the post.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is, however, a clear distinction between the two cases described by the hon. Member; and the Postmaster General is not prepared to abolish the charge which is made for postage when a telegram is converted into a letter and an entirely fresh service has to be performed.

  TELEGRAPHIC CHARGE ANOMALIES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain why in telegrams Westgate-on-Sea is charged as one word, but Birchington-on-Sea as three words.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The name of the second place mentioned by the hon. Member is "Birchington," and if the words "on-Sea" are added in any case they are charged for because they are superfluous.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: May I ask why Camden Town is charged as one word and Woodford Green as two?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I informed my hon. friend of the reason for that about a week ago.
  In answer to a question put by Mr. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)—
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Westgate-on-Sea is the proper address,
  432
  and is, therefore, charged as one word. In the case of Birchington the words "on-Sea" are not necessary, and if anyone puts them in a telegram he must pay for them.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Cannot you lay down a rule that the names of all places in the United Kingdom shall be charged as one word, and so save all these petty annoyances?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to alter the rule, of which I think my hon. friend knows the purport.

  CARMARTHENSHIRE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a petition, signed by a number of inhabitants of the districts of Brechfa, Tirclai, and Llwyncelyn, in the county of Carmarthen, in favour of a daily delivery of letters in those districts; whether inquiries have been made and the question considered by the Postmaster General; and, if so, whether he will state the result of the inquiries and the reasons for the decision arrived at.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received the petition referred to by the hon. Member, and he has given careful consideration to the question of affording a daily delivery of letters in the districts mentioned, which are now served twice a week. Inquiry shows, however, that the cost of the existing service is so high in proportion to the correspondence, which is extremely small, that the Postmaster General would not be justified in sanctioning additional expense for the purpose of providing a more frequent delivery.

  THURSO AND BETTYHILL MAILS.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the terms of the contract for the carriage of mails from Thurso to Bettyhill, how

  433
  long it has been in existence; and, if there is any loss to the Department, why new tenders are not invited.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The contract for the mail car service between Thurso and Bettyhill provides for the conveyance of mails once daily in each direction. The present contract has been in existence since the beginning of last year, and, as it is satisfactory, it is not considered advisable to invite new tenders.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: Has there been any loss to the Department?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think so, but the difficulty is in getting a more satisfactory arrangement.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' PAY.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that on 31st July, 1900, the Central Committee of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association forwarded a petition to the Postmaster General asking that clerks with five years service should receive 28s. per week in the provinces and 30s. per week in London, and that in May, 1901, the Committee appealed for an answer, whether an answer can now be given.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As stated in a recent answer given upon this subject, the question respecting the pay of telegraphists with five years service, having been already settled in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, is not regarded as open to discussion; and the Postmaster General informed a deputation from the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, which he received in July, 1901, to that effect.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES—SOLDIERS ON SERVICE.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, in view of the continuance of hostilities in South Africa, whether the Electoral Disabilities (Military Service) Removal Act, 1900 (63 Vic, c. 8), will extend to the registration proceedings of the current year.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): Yes, Sir.

  FOOTBALL IN EDINBURGH STREETS.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the cases of David Craig, Albert Burns, James Burns, John Campbell, Peter M' Donald, and George Speakman, boys of seventeen to ten years of age, who pleaded guilty to having played football to the annoyance of the lieges in Wardrope's Court, Edinburgh; and were sentenced by Bailie Murray, who presided, James Burns to three days in the cells, and the others to receive each five stripes with the birch rod; and whether he will inquire into these cases.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The hon. Member's information is not quite accurate. The boys in question were charged with behaving in a disorderly manner, as well as with playing football in the street, and pleaded guilty to both charges. The offence of disorderly conduct is one which involves the punishment of imprisonment. James Burns, the eldest of the boys, being seventeen years of age, was sentenced to pay a fine of 5s. or suffer three days imprisonment. The other boys, all of whom were, in the opinion of the magistrate, under fourteen years of age, were sentenced to be whipped in lieu of imprisonment. The magistrate has power to pass such sentence both at common law and under Section 348 of the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Act of 1879. I may add that numerous complaints had been received from neighbouring residents regarding the behaviour of these boys, and they have all been previously cautioned by the police for similar conduct to that charged; while some of them have been convicted of other offences. Under these circumstances the sentences were legal, and, in my opinion, very proper.

  LISCANNOR (CLARE) HARBOUR.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of asking the

  435
  Government to provide a special grant for the purpose of improving the harbour at Liscannor, county Clare, in view of the fact that there is a considerable industry in Liscannor in stone quarries, which is hampered owing to the state of the harbour.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I cannot undertake to approach the Treasury for a special grant for the purpose of improving Liscannor harbour; but should the Government be placed in funds hereafter for the carrying out of works of such magnitude, the claims of that harbour will receive every consideration.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the estimate for improvement of this harbour amounts to nearly £13,000, and in view of the great interests involved will he consider if he cannot help the local bodies in some way?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The estimate before me amounts to £13,000. Unfortunately we have no money at our disposal.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No, you want it all for the war.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And for Lord Roberts.

  KILKENNY MAGISTRACY.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the New Ross Petty Sessions District is largely made up of a portion of county Kilkenny, and whether the Lord Chancellor will consider the advisability of appointing at least one Nationalist magistrate resident in county Kilkenny.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge of the fact stated in the first part of the question, and in reply to the second part I can only say that the Lieutenant of the county and the Lord Chancellor are always prepared to consider the names of any suitable gentleman recommended for appointment to the commission of the peace.

  PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  436
  tenant of Ireland whether he is aware that £12,000 was promised by the Treasury under certain conditions to assist in the re-equipment of the Portumna Railway, and that this line cost £98,000 to construct; and seeing that the residents along the main portions of this derelict line have no railway accommodation within twenty miles, will he reconsider the position with a view to re-establish means of railway communication in this district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can only refer the hon. Member to my replies to the several questions which he has already addressed to me on this subject. To these replies I have nothing to add.
  MR. ROCHEwas understood to ask if nothing could be done, although the line cost £98,000.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had already answered the question several times.

  IRISH CENSUS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why a portion of the taskwork in connection with the Irish Census is being done on this occasion by boy writers indoor, paid at 4d. an hour, instead of being given out to duly appointed taskworkers who had to pass a Civil Service examination specially for the position, and the remuneration for whom has been sanctioned by the Treasury.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It has been found that certain classes of work which in 1891 were performed by taskworkers could be efficiently done on the present occasion by boy copyists at a considerable saving of expense.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a temporary female clerk on the Census has been appointed to a superintendentship of one of the sections of the Census Department to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of Dr. Falkiner, who is also superintendent of statistics in the General Register Office; and seeing that five superinten-

  437
  dentships on Census have hitherto been held by senior officials in the General Register Office, can he explain why a member on the present staff of that department was not appointed to the vacant post, and why a young girl should be placed in charge of a staff of male clerks.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The vacant post of superintendent has not been filled by a female clerk. The section has been placed under the general direction of one of the other male superintendents, and a female clerk has been appointed to assist him in this section, which consists mainly of boys.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in future these appointments are given to senior officers, and not as in this case to a young lady of one and a half years' service.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe the arrangements made are ample for the work to be done. No doubt should the work develop proper arrangements will be made.
  MR. NANNETTI: But is it the intention of the department to appoint ladies in future over the heads of male workers?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that is the intention at all.

  WHITE ESTATE, BANTRY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an order was made on 11th June by Judge Ross for the valuation of the White estate, near Bantry, with a view to its sale to the tenants under the 40th section of the Land Purchase Act, 1896; can he say whether the valuers have since visited the holdings; and seeing that this estate was in the Encumbered Estates Court for several years, will he have the sale expedited.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inspection of this estate has not yet been carried out, but no unnecessary delay will take place in undertaking this duty. I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion under the notice of the Land Commissioners.

  UNITED IBISH LEAGUE MEETING AT BHODE.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 28th July last, an attempted meeting in support of the United Irish League at Rhode, in King's County, was ordered to disperse by Sergeant O'Dea, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, without any legal cause or warrant; and whether, in Ireland, it is within the discretion of any local police sergeant to determine, without having received any official instructions, whether a public meeting shall or shall not be held.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An exaggerated report of the incident referred to appears to have reached the hon. Member. The sergeant did not disperse the meeting, or attempt to do so. A small crowd assembled near the post office to the obstruction of persons passing to and from that building. The sergeant requested the individual who was addressing the crowd to move to the other side of the street; he did so at once, and continued to address the people without interference.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: Is it not the case that where this alleged obstruction took place there are not two dozen houses, which are scattered at intervals, and that the crossway is very broad? Was not the interference of the police sergeant totally uncalled for?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think the police sergeant did a reasonable thing in a reasonable way.

  LOUTH LAND COUBT APPEALS.
  MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if appeals against Land Court decisions in the county of Louth can be arranged for hearing in Drogheda or Dundalk instead of in Dublin, thereby saving additions in the expenses to the parties interested.
  MR WYNDHAM: This is a matter for determination by the Land Commissioners, who I have no doubt will consult the convenience of all the parties

  439
  so far as possible. I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion under the notice of the Commissioners.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN MILL-STREET (CORK) UNION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board are aware of the proceedings at the last inquiry respecting labourers' cottages and additional half-acre plots in the Knocknagree division (Millstreet Union), county Cork, and whether he can state why the applications by two labourers on the Archdeacon Bland property for additional plots were rejected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The taking of these two additional allotments was opposed by the occupier of the lands on the ground of the unsuitability of the applicants. One was the former tenant of the lands from which he was evicted for non-payment of rent, and is on his own admission hostile to the occupier. The latter also averred that the other applicant and his friends prevented labourers from working for him. For these reasons the taking of the additional allotments was not recommended by the inspector.
  MR. FLYNN: Then does the right hon. Gentleman lay it down as a principle that refusal to work for a man is a good ground for denying an applicant the benefit of this Act?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot enter into the merits of the case. I think the inspector acted properly on the evidence before him.

  IRISH SCHOOL TEACHER'S SALARY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education will say what is the cause of the delay in the payment of the salary due to the principal teacher of Roll No. 7138, District No. 52.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The career of this teacher has been most unsatisfactory. He was reprimanded in 1896 for drunken-
  440
  ness, and in 1898 he was depressed in classification for inefficiency. The local manager was unable to certify that the rules of the Commissioners had been complied with, or that the character of the teacher was satisfactory in the last quarterly return. Payment of his salary has, therefore, been suspended pending an investigation by the inspector.

  SIR JOHN GARDEN'S GAME COVERTS.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that for several hours of two days of last January Mr. Henry Bruen, resident magistrate, Mr. R. J. Carden, J.P., Mr. George Ryan, J.P., and some Militia officers blocked the public road leading from Templemore to Borrisoleigh by discharging fowling-pieces at pheasants, and thereby prevented many persons in charge of horses from passing; and, seeing that this is a common practice of these gentlemen during a part of the shooting season each year, will he take measures to prevent a recurrence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is true that the several gentlemen named stood for a period of about ten minutes on two separate occasions in January last on that portion of the public road which runs through one of the coverts in Sir John Carden's demesne. It is not true, however, that any person was prevented from passing. The circumstances have been greatly exaggerated, but, even comparatively harmless as they were, it is to be regretted that Mr. Bruen was concerned in them.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not illegal to fire a gun on the public road, and do the Government intend to take any notice of the conduct of this resident magistrate, who in all cases concerning law and order is not only expected to preserve the peace, but also to set a good example?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think the hon. Gentleman heard me say that this road, although a public one, ran through a private covert. Certainly, some notice ought to be taken of what occurred, and I consider I have taken notice of it by the reply I have given.
  MR. ROCHEasked whether firing was not actually prohibited within thirty yards of public roadways.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had not looked up the law on that point, but was perfectly aware that no one was allowed to fire a gun in a public road. But in this case the road ran through a private covert, and in similar circumstances he was not certain that he had not done exactly the same thing himself. The practice, though, was a reprehensible one, especially for anybody concerned with the administration of the law.
  MR. ROCHEremarked that it seemed no one could fire in the public road unless he was a resident magistrate.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Or an Orangeman who can fire in the public road or anywhere else he likes.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CREAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this very resident magistrate has fined farmers for a like offence?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Satan reproving sin!

  SKIBBEREEN LAND COMMISSION-MAJOR CRONSDALE.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Major Cronsdale has recently acted as Land Commissioner in Skibbereen, and can he state how many farms were personally inspected by him on the occasion, and in how many of these cases was he present at the hearing of the evidence in Court.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe the fact is as stated in the first part of the question. In the absence, however, of Major Cronsdale, who is at present on leave of absence, I am unable to reply to the remainder of the question.
  MR. DELANY: Is it not the fact that this gentleman's only qualification is that he is a Militia major, and that he knows nothing about farming?
  [No answer was returned.]

  FERMANAGH ELECTORAL DIVISIONS.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Fermanagh County Council employed the Tory election agent for county Fermanagh to draw up a scheme to change the county electoral divisions and electoral districts; has any other county council in Ireland taken any steps to change the county or district electoral divisions as fixed by the Local Government Board; and what steps do the Local Government Board intend to take in this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on the first part of the question. The proposal to hold an inquiry into the inequalities of the present electoral system was adopted by the county council on the recommendation of a Committee of that body; the details of the scheme were worked out by the secretary and two of the principal officers of the council. So far the Board has not received other schemes of a similar nature. In answer to the third inquiry, I would refer to my reply to the question put to me on Thursday last by the hon. Member for South Fermanagh, †

  DISCHARGING FIREARMS, COUNTY ANTRIM.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 12th July last a number of Orangemen from Gortaherron, county Antrim, fired a number of shots into the house of a Roman Catholic named Mr. Andrew M'Mullen, of Tamloght; whether the police have prosecuted any of these Orangemen for their action; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent similar proceedings in this district in future, especially as they have hitherto been of annual occurrence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No shots were fired into the house of Mr. M'Mullen, as alleged. He reported to the police that a bullet struck his house on the date mentioned, but a careful examination made at the time by the police failed to satisfy them that this was so. It is
  † See page 73.

  443
  the fact, however, that during the night of the 11th July a number of shots were fired from the Nationalist quarter in the direction of the Orange quarter, and vice versa, but no similar occurrence in the district came to the knowledge of the police in former years. This locality has received and will continue to receive the special attention of the police.

  CAPPAWHITE EVICTIONS.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that, on the 28th June last, Thomas Franklin, of Cluanganhue, Cappawhite, county Tipperary, was evicted from his house by Mrs. Valentine Ryan; that no notice to provide accommodation for said Thomas Franklin was served on the relieving officer of the district, and that the guardians of the Tipperary board are cognisant of the fact; and can he state whether they have taken steps to proceed against Mrs. Ryan for disregarding the statute in such case provided, and will he inquire into this case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the guardians are taking steps to proceed against the landlord for her alleged failure to serve a notice in this case. The matter calls for no intervention on the part of the Government.

  RABIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state how many cases of rabies occurred in Ireland since January, 1901, to present date, whether those cases were authenticated by qualified veterinary surgeons, or whether they were reported upon by members of the constabulary force.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Two cases of rabies occurred in Ireland since January last, one in February and the other in April. They were notified by the constabulary, and the existence of rabies in each case was authenticated by qualified veterinary surgeons, and by independent examination conducted by the Department of Agriculture.
  MR. FIELD: And is the occurrence of two cases a
  444
  sufficient justification for boycotting all dogs, even sporting dogs?

  DISPUTE BETWEEN SCHOOL LOCAL MANAGER AND TEACHER.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what decision has the Board of National Education come to on the inquiry held on the 15th of March last in School No. 7245, District 46, has the decision been made known to the teacher, and have the representations which called for this inquiry been verified before the head inspector who presided.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No final decision has been arrived at in respect to this inquiry. Correspondence is still proceeding in reference to the unsatisfactory relations between the local manager and teacher.

  BELFAST VALUATION LISTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why in the new valuation lists for the city of Belfast there appears a primary valuation of £1,000 for the city burial grounds, seeing that the provisions of Section 194 of the Public Health Act, 1878, prohibit any increase of burial grounds after acquisition of same.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An appeal has been lodged in this case, and I am precluded, therefore, from making any statement in the matter.
  MR. FIELD: If the law is correctly stated in my question, why need the revaluation be made?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to discuss the validity of the valuation, since an appeal has been lodged, and will be heard in due course.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the English Local Government Board has at its disposal a yearly grant of funds for the

  445
  purpose of promoting scientific investigation; and, seeing that the Irish Local Government Board has not at its disposal any sum for a similar purpose, would he recommend the placing of the Irish Local Government Board in this respect on the same footing as the similar Board in England.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The grant provided for the purpose of scientific research in the Vote for the English Local Government Board was inherited, I am informed, in 1871 from the Privy Council Department. The results of the researches have been published in a supplement to the Board's Annual reports. The suggestion in the second paragraph will be considered. I have already stated that the present pronouncements of Dr. Koch in regard to the transmission of bovine tuberculosis are engaging the attention of the Irish Local Government Board in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture.

  KINVARA HARBOUR.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an excursion steamer was obliged on Sunday last to lie outside the bar of Kinvara harbour on account of the accumulation of sand and mud; and seeing that small boats are occasionally employed to carry in passengers and goods from vessels, whether he will hold the promised inquiry, and compel the collector of tolls to make the necessary improvements by deepening the entrance of the harbour so as to enable vessels to enter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade has stated that so far as he could ascertain, there was no harbour authority responsible for the maintenance of this harbour. The Commissioners of Public Works have no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry with a view to compel the collector of tolls to improve the harbour.

  ARDMORE ABBEY CHURCH.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his
  446
  attention has been called to the condition of the old Abbey Church, Ardmore, county Waterford; whether he is aware that a beautiful arch in the chancel is in a critical condition; and whether he will see that immediate steps are taken to preserve this arch and other portions of the abbey from destruction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My attention has not previously been drawn to the condition of these ruins. But I have referred the matter to the Board of Works, whose inspector will make an inspection of the ruins at an early date.

  CROWN OFFICIALS ON IRISH GRAND JURIES.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is in accordance with departmental regulations for paid officials of the Crown to act on grand juries whose only business now is confined to the finding of bills in criminal cases; whether he is aware that Mr. George Knight, clerk of the Crown and peace for county Meath, acted as such for the county Monaghan at the spring and summer assizes of this year; and whether on the occasions referred to he had permission from the Lord Chancellor to be absent from the discharge of his public duties.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no regulation, departmental or otherwise, prohibiting a paid official of the Crown from serving on a grand jury. The assize at Monaghan were held some days after the Meath assizes, and no public inconvenience was caused by Mr. Knight's absence from Meath. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative; no such permission is requisite.

  HAULING DOWN THE UNION JACK.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is true that on Tuesday last, in the Carlingford Lough, delegates from the Irish Nationalist Foresters, before proceeding on board the steamship "Pilot," demanded that the Union Jack should be hauled down, and it was hauled down amid the cheers of the delegates.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Union Jack was hauled down at Malta yesterday, and, if so, what action does he propose to take?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No report of this incident has reached me. If it is correctly reported, the conduct of those in charge of the vessel was not only disloyal, but pusillanimous and contemptible. The Government will not take any steps, as the matter is one entirely for the owners of the vessel.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is there no answer to my question?

  BAILIEBOROUGH (CAVAN) RURAL POSTMEN'S PAY.
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that rural postmen of the established class serving at Bailieborough, county Cavan, were paid on a scale commencing at 13s., rising by annual increments of 1s. to 17s. per week; and seeing that vacancies now occurring are being filled up by men put on a fixed pay of 15s. a week, whether he can state the reason for this reduction.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The scale of 13s.—1s.—17s. a week is an obsolete one. The proper wages for established rural postmen at Bailieborough on the occurrence of vacancies are 15s. or 16s. a week, fixed according to the distance walked.

  CASTLE COVE RURAL POSTMAN'S PAY.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Cornelius O'Shea, rural auxiliary postman between Cahirdaniel and Castle Cove, county Kerry, has received no increase of pay since April, 1897, although, through the extension of the house-to-house delivery, his work has been increased to the extent of one and a half hours daily; and, seeing that the daily duties, Sundays excepted, of this postman involve four and a half hours of practically continuous walking,
  448
  and that he receives no boot money, whether under the circumstances an increase of pay, which is at present 9s. 6d. per week, will be granted.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Since his appointment as rural auxiliary in January, 1898, Cornelius O'Shea's hours of duty have been four and a quarter a day. Originally his four and a quarter hours of duty included an interval of one hour and forty minutes, during which he remained at the end of his walk. By the extension of the delivery the interval has now been reduced to less than half an hour; but as he has been paid all along at the full rate for four and a quarter hours work, the Postmaster General regrets that no increase in his wages would be justified. He is not entitled to boot allowance.

  INNISKEEN POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will order an inquiry into the dismissal of a man named Fitzpatrick, who was postmaster at Inniskeen, county Monaghan, by an inspector named Lockington, whose brother has now got the post office; whether it is the practice for officials of the Post Office to be sent to localities where their relations reside, as in the case of this inspector, by which the late postmaster at Inniskeen has lost his position; whether he can state who selected the present postmaster, and if anyone else in the locality had the opportunity of applying for the position or of knowing that it was vacant before the workmen of the Post Office went to remove the telegraph wires from the old office; and whether he can state if the present postmaster at Inniskeen applied for the post; and, if so, who informed him that the position was vacant, as the late postmaster did not know of his dismissal until the workmen came to remove the telegraph wires.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The decision respecting the Inniskeen office was not arrived at without due consideration; and it is not in the Postmaster General's opinion necessary to reopen the matter. When it is necessary to institute such an investigation the

  449
  officer whose normal duty it is is sent irrespective of the question whether his relatives reside in the neighbourhood or not. The officer who conducted the inquiry in the present instance was at the time acting as postmaster at the Dundalk office, to which the Inniskeen office is subordinate, and it was part of his ordinary duty to conduct it. As already stated in reply to the hon. Member's question of the 1st instant, the person at present acting as sub-postmaster at Inniskeen is merely acting temporarily, and no appointment has as yet been made. The officer who made the inquiry is not responsible for his selection; and before an appointment is made the qualifications of all the candidates will be carefully considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it proper for an official to give a postmaster ship to his brother without notice, and have the Department no remark to make on it?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The inspector did not even temporarily give the job to his brother. The Postmaster General takes full responsibility.
  MR. DALY: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I have no information as to that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was the man who was dismissed a Catholic and the one appointed in his place a Protestant?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on that point.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Freemasonry again.

  RATHKEALE MAILS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, the 25th, 26th, and 27th July last, also on Wednesday the 31st July, and Thursday, 1st August, the mails from Dublin due in Rathkeale at 11 a.m. did not arrive till 7.10 p.m.;
  450
  can he state the cause of the delay; and, seeing the inconvenience to the public in the county of Limerick caused by letters and the Dublin daily newspapers not arriving by the morning train, will he ascertain whether there was neglect of duty on the part of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on these occasions in this matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is true that on the dates referred to by the hon. Member failures of connection occurred at Limerick between the day mail train from Limerick Junction and the mail train for Rathkeale, etc., and that the mails which should have gone forward by the latter train had to be kept back for the next available train. The primary cause of the delay was the late arrival at Holyhead of the Irish night mail train from London, and it appears that on the dates in question the passengers for Ireland were so numerous as to render it necessary for two trains instead of one to be run for their conveyance. When an additional train is run some delay seems to be unavoidable, but the railway company have been urged to take all possible measures for securing the early arrival of the mail train at Holyhead.
  MR. JOYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a matter of daily occurrence in the city of Limerick for the mails to be two hours late? Will the department take care that the railway company fulfils its contract?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no knowledge as to that.

  BANTRY BAY FORESHORE.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say what are the rights reserved to the public in the agreement made between the Board of Trade and the trustees of the Bantry Estate in connection with the foreshore of Bantry Bay.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The conveyance to the Bantry Estate Trustees to which the hon. Member refers contains a reservation of all public rights of way to and over the property conveyed. The

  451
  conveyance also contains a covenant by the trustees not to erect on the property conveyed without the consent of the Board of Trade any building which would, in the Board's opinion, be prejudicial to rights of navigation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us have the conveyance in the form, say, of a parliamentary Paper?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that desirable.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not a conveyance from a State Department to a private individual of a grant of foreshore over which the public had rights? How are we to know what the rights thus conveyed are?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have stated what the rights are.

  STEAM LAUNCHES ON CARLINGFORD LOUGH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that complaint has been made to the Board that the steam launches ferrying for hire between Omeath, county Louth, and Warrenpoint, on Carlingford Lough, do not exhibit notices as to the number of passengers they are licensed to carry; can he state what the maximum number is; has this complaint that the launches are overcrowded, especially on Sundays and holidays, been investigated; and, if so, with what result, and will any steps be taken to prevent the public safety being endangered by overcrowding or by these launches taking crowded row boats in tow across the lough.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes. Sir, the Board of Trade have received certain complaints with regard to the steam launches to which the hon. Member refers. These launches hold Board of Trade certificates, authorising them to carry respectively a maximum number of sixty-five, thirty-eight, and thirty-one passengers. In one case it is stated that the certificate has not been exhibited on board, as required by the Merchant Shipping Act, and the question of prose-
  452
  cuting the owner or master is under consideration. No case of overcrowding the launches themselves has come to the notice of either the Board of Trade or the local police, or proceedings would have been taken, but I shall communicate with the local authorities and with the owners of the launches with a view to stopping the objectionable and dangerous practice I understand to prevail of launches full of passengers towing crowded rowboats across Carlingford Lough.

  SLIGO BAY LIGHTS.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Sligo Harbour Commissioners have made frequent applications to the Commissioners of Irish Lights to have lights established at Bowmore for the purpose of enabling vessels entering Sligo Bay at night time to reach safe anchorage, and can he explain why the representations of the Sligo Harbour Commissioners have not been taken notice of by the Commissioners of Irish Lights.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, with whom I have communicated, that they consider that the lights asked for at Bowmore are purely for local benefit, and should not be established at the cost of the General Lighthouse Fund.

  SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Royal Fishery Commissioners, who finished sitting at the beginning of this year, will issue their Report; and whether, in the event of that Report being still unpublished at the beginning of next session, the Government will act upon the advice of former Royal Commissions, and take steps to redress the grievances of the Cumberland fishermen, owing to the state of the law on the English and Scotch sides of the Solway.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Assuming that the Royal Commis-

  453
  sion referred to in the question is the Salmon Fisheries Commission, I understand that it concluded taking evidence only last month, and is now considering the Report.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can make any statement about affording facilities for the passing of certain non-contentious private Bills in which substantial progress has already been made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my noble friend and the House are aware, no Bills are starred on the Order Paper at this period of the session but those to which it is fully clear no opposition is expected, and if opposition unexpectedly arises it is impossible for the Government to persevere with the starred Bill. With that qualification I understand that the Public Libraries Bill, which has reached the Report stage, and of which my noble friend has charge, is one which, I think, might be properly starred, also the Bishopric of Southwark Bill, the County Councils (Bye-laws) Bill, and the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Is not the Bishopric of Southwark Bill opposed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand not.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: Has not notice of opposition been given from both sides of the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that we shall have full opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: After what hour will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill shall not be brought on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At this period of the session it is dangerous to give any pledge of that nature. Of course, I am anxious that no important discussion shall be brought on late.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: How is it that this Bill is not starred?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is treated as a starred Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: IS not that a matter for Mr. Speaker to decide?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Government have announced to the House that they intend to treat it starred Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But how are private members to know? Is it done merely in order to escape the twelve o'clock rule?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the point is raised at the proper time I shall be prepared to deal with it.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to fix some limit of time after which the Sale to Children Bill will not be taken?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is it not the fact that the Amendments introduced in the Grand Committee have altogether altered the nature of the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The effect of the Amendments introduced is not to make the Bill a new Bill, but they may be better described as in the direction of "cautious" legislation.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to bring it on after one o'clock?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope my right hon. friend will not press that. It is absolutely necessary we should make some personal sacrifice in order to bring the session to a close.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to bring it on after four a.m.?
  MR. DAVID MACIVER: In view of the considerable opposition to it, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring on the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I have the very faintest hopes of that.
  MR. CALDWELLasked if questions could not now be commenced at 3.15.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I under stand that private business is now concluded, and on and after to-morrow public business will commence at 3.15.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the Naval Works Bill be the first Order for Wednesday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, that is my expectation, but it depends largely on what happens to-night and to-morrow. I must be allowed some latitude as to the arrangement of business.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: When do you propose to take the Irish Bills?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Loan Bill, without amendment.
  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]

ROYAL TITLES BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the scope, purpose, and occasion of the Bill to which I now ask the House to give a Second Reading have been quite sufficiently expressed in the parliamentary papers laid before the House, which contain correspondence on the subject with the Governments of the great self-governing colonies. I cannot imagine anybody having any objection to the substance of the Bill; and, as regards the form, the only objection I have seen taken in any quarter is that the actual terms of the title are not contained within the four corners of the proposed statute. To this objection the
456
reply is that we have followed precedent, and I think it will be a more convenient course to do now as we did in 1876, and abstain from embodying the ipsissima verba of the new title in the clauses of the statute which makes legal a change in the style and title of the Sovereign. I do not think I need labour this point. The character of the change is perfectly well known to the House; it has been very clearly indicated, and, though I suppose I ought not to pledge the Government absolutely to every word and comma, I am entitled for all practical purposes to say that the only change proposed is by way of additional words which will be interpolated between the words "Ireland" and "King" in the present Royal style and title. The added words will be "and of all British Dominions beyond the seas." There is but one suggestion with regard to the form which the new title should take upon which I need say anything, and I only occupy the time of the House with this because it comes from a quarter which deserves respect. The suggestion is from Lord Rosebery that instead of "British dominions," the word "Britains" should be used. Well, there may be some Latin justification for the use of that word, but there is no English justification. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Or Irish.] It is not in accordance, I think, with the spirit of the English language, and it is certainly a great novelty in usage. I doubt whether the public will ever be got to talk of each of our self-governing colonies as a Britain, and I do not think a man can go round the world and say he has visited half-a-dozen Britains. I think it is so violent a change, so great a revolution, in our accustomed phraseology, that, whatever might be said for it, had it embedded itself in our usage and practice, I do not think it would be possible to start it now by statute, or to impose it by law or by proclamation upon the practice of His Majesty's subjects. There is a still further objection to the suggestion which I think deserving of consideration. If I understand aright, Lord Rosebery's object in making the change was, in his view, that wherever Britons settled themselves down with free institutions in other lands, carrying with them, if not the letter, at all events the spirit of our

457
Constitution, carrying with them our religion, our laws, and the general characteristics of a British community, there a Britain, a new Britain as it were, arose from out of the wilderness. I think there is something to be said for that view as regards the great self-governing colonies, but we do not wish to confine it to those colonies, and the new title will apply to many dominions of His Majesty which do not fit in with the description I have just given of a new Britain beyond the seas—the dominions of His Majesty where the greater number of the inhabitants do not belong to our race, do not speak our tongue, and are subjected to a jurisprudence which is neither the common law nor the statute law of this land. I hope that in all such places British views of justice and order and of personal liberty prevail, but it cannot be said that in the colonies to which I have referred a new Britain, on the model of the old, can in any sense be asserted to have arisen. For these reasons I venture to think the form of declaration I have read to the House will meet with more general favour than the alternative suggestion, important as the quarter is from which that suggestion emanates. I will, therefore, say no more in defence of the particular wording by which it is proposed to amend the present style and title of the Sovereign. I would only remind the House that when in 1876, amid considerable controversy and some little excitement, a change was made in the Royal style and title by the addition of the words "Empress of India," an earnest plea for the recognition of the colonies was advanced by Mr. Forster and others, and Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, expressed his sympathy with the proposal. He said—
"It was a question of much difficulty, and, though he did not despair that the time might yet arrive when so happy a result might be consummated, he was unprepared at that moment to meet the requirements of the case."
I think that happy result may now be attained; I think that the propitious moment has now arrived. As long ago as 1887 a colonial conference expressed its desire that some change might be made in the Royal style and title to indicate the vast growth in our colonial dominions
458
which had taken place since the beginning of the reign of the late Queen. Their wishes expressed in 1887, Mr. Disraeli's and Mr. Forster's wishes expressed in 1876, should now, I think, find their adequate and worthy fulfilment in 1901, and we shall for the first time give to our Sovereign the title which covers the whole of the vast ground occupied by the British Empire. In those circumstances I hope that without controversy, without a dissentient voice, the House will consent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not anticipate that there will be any substantial opposition, at all events to the Second Reading of this measure; the circumstances are entirely different from those in which the most recent alteration in the style and title of the Crown was brought about. We all remember how great a storm arose from the proposal to create the title of Empress of India. That storm arose from the apprehension on the part of the public, not, I think, either an unworthy or an unreasonable apprehension, that this new and more sonorous title might swallow up and swamp the old familiar traditional names of King or Queen, which are thought much more characteristic of our country, not only in its domestic, but in its Imperial aspect. There was great fear lest we should become accustomed to alterations in the title, not only of the Crown itself, but of the Royal Family. I remember a most impassioned speech made by Mr. Joseph Cowen, whose principal, overwhelming fear was that the old name of Prince of Wales should be merged in some such title as the Imperial Crown Prince, or some designation of that kind. Well, there is nothing of that kind at all in this proposal. There is merely an acknowledgment and expression of a fact which already exists, and the King at this moment is King over all the dependencies of the country, and as it has been desired especially on the part of our fellow subjects in other parts of the world this fact should be recognised, and I certainly see no reason why there should be

459
any great jealousy or susceptibility on the subject. At the time when the Royal Titles Bill of 1876 was discussed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was suggested that some words should be introduced acknowledging the colonial empire, and I confess to a great relief at finding that the Government have rejected all the rhetorical and fantastic suggestions that have been made, and have adhered to a simple and unadorned statement of the fact. The original proposal, which emanated, I think, from the Colonial Secretary, and was submitted to the colonies, in his name, not in the name of the Government, was that the words Greater Britain should be used. Since then we have had the other proposal by a noble friend of mine, that Britains should be used in the plural number. That is liable, I think, to all the objections which the right hon. Gentleman has stated against it. The colonies themselves, in the answers they gave to the inquiry of His Majesty's Government, preferred the less ambitious, less poetical, simpler title, and I think in that they showed their good sense, and that the country and people at large will be of that opinion. I did not catch that the right hon. Gentleman read to the House the actual title which was to be used, but it is sufficiently known. The only observation I should like to make upon it is this. Of course, everyone has his own idea of what the proper title ought to be; I am not very much enamoured of the word "dominions," for many resaons, but among others that it clashes a little with the fact that one of our great colonies has assumed the title of Dominion itself, and others may assume other names. I should have thought that the familiar words "colonies and dependencies," King of Great Britain and Ireland, and the colonies and dependencies thereto belonging, or thereof, words which have authority and usage in their favour, would have been a simpler suggestion to have adopted. But it really does not matter very much; the Government make this proposal in order to carry out the desire of many of our fellow-subjects in the colonies, who, it must be remembered, are quite as much our fellow-subjects as if they lived in this country. I believe it is undoubtedly the case that any fellow-subject of ours among the whole domi-
460
nions of His Majesty if he came over here and qualified himself, by residence and otherwise, could vote in our elections just as much as if he had been born, and bred, and lived all his life in this country. So that we are really one people essentially, and this slight alteration or addition to the title of the Crown merely gives public recognition and expression to that fact. I, therefore, do not see why anyone should raise, as I said, substantial objection to the title.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the Leader of the House in the space of five minutes made two-cardinal mistakes, and the Leader of the Opposition, who followed, was a good second, because he made one mistake. The Leader of the House made a cardinal mistake when he said there was no precedent whatever for permitting an Act to be passed containing the actual terms of the title to be assumed by the Sovereign. The right hon. Gentleman would at once cite in support of his contention the Royal Titles Bill of 1876. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that was not a precedent. That Act was based on the precedent of the Act of Union, which Mr. Gladstone asserted was no precedent at all. The present Bill, therefore, was clearly distinguished from the Royal Titles Act of 1876, which was an infraction of constitutional usage. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who was never very accurate in details, made another mistake, and the reason he made the mistake was that in 1876 he was absorbed in the tactics of the "Fourth Party," and teaching the Nationalists the methods of obstruction. This is what Mr. Disraeli said in 1876—
"It is absurd to suppose that our colonial fellow-subjects misconceive the spirit in which we are proposing to legislate; but, on the contrary, I believe there would be great cause of complaint if we drew a line and made a distinction between those of Her Majesty's subjects who live in the United Kingdom and those who are to be found in Canada or elsewhere."
The Leader of the Opposition had said that this Bill was desired by the colonies. That was a mistake. The initiative of the Bill did not come from the colonies at all; it came from the Colonial Secretary, and it had the "Brummagem" brand from top to bottom. It was not

461
the legislative offspring of the Cabinet, but a genuine product of Birmingham. It was a mean attempt, inspired by the absurd and vulgar spirit of Imperialism, to subsidise the Crown with a parvenu title, and a tawdry, gew-gaw decoration.
This amplification of titles was a bad sign—a sign of decadence. On the eve of the French Revolution the nobility of France invented new titles and indulged in this kind of peacock grandeur, when power was actually slipping from their hands. From a psychological point of view this Bill showed the fondness of the Colonial Secretary for pageantry and ceremonial. Moreover, it differed from every other Bill with reference to the Royal title in two respects. First it did not contain the addition to the title. The Bill which created Henry VIII. "Defender of the Faith" named that title, and it was said that it would be high treason to deny that the King was "Defender of the Faith." He supposed it would be high treason to deny hereafter that the King was "King of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas." Again, when the King was made King of Ireland in 1545 that was done by Act of Parliament. In 1876 when the Royal Titles Bill was introduced there was considerable controversy as to what the title should be in relation to the Queen's sovereignty over India, and the title was kept back for something like ten or twelve days after the introduction of the Bill into the House of Commons. But before this Bill was introduced at all in the House of Lords a most ridiculous and ludicrous correspondence took place between the Colonial Secretary and the colonies. The Colonial Secretary asked the cabinets of the colonies to select a title, and they having selected a title the right hon. Gentleman would have nothing to do with it. He excluded the title from the Bill in order that the King might himself assume the title. He would remind the House that the prerogative was entirely independent of an Act of Parliament, and there was no reason for the omission of the title in the Bill except the author's contempt for Parliament. The second respect in which this Bill differed from all others amending the Royal title, certainly since the Revolution, was that it came
462
down from the House of Lords, while all these other Bills of a like nature had been first introduced in the House of Commons, and for the perfectly proper reason that the King ruled by a statutory title, and the House of Commons, as representatives of the people, had a large voice in determining what that title should be. In fact, he at one time had thought of taking the extreme step of objecting to the First Reading of the Bill as not being in agreement with constitutional principles.
Further, he maintained that the Bill meant nothing after all, because His Majesty was King of the colonies in a far more absolute sense than he was King of this country. The colonies were mere settlements to which our Acts of Parliament did not apply unless they were specially mentioned in these Acts. If the Colonial Secretary had ever read the history of the North American War he would have known that one of the chief contentions during that war was that the King himself was the legislator and sole executive power of the colonies, and that the orders of the King in the colonies, had the force of the law. Again, in 1858, a Royal Proclamation was issued, with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been familiar, by which the Charter of the old East India Company was abrogated and the territories of the East Indies were brought under the dominion of the Crown. In that Proclamation the Sovereign was described as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and all the Colonies. There was therefore no necessity for any new title stating that His Majesty was King of the colonies. In 1876 it was urged very strongly in debate that when India was brought under subjection to the British Crown in 1858 then would have been the time to make an alteration in the title of the Queen; but the answer made by Mr. Disraeli to that argument was that they could not introduce an alteration in the title of the Queen when our swords after the Mutiny were simply reeking with the blood of our fellow subjects in India. Why, then, introduce a Bill conferring a ginger-bread title on the King, when our swords were reeking with the blood of our fellow-

463
subjects in the South African Colonies, and when fierce racial passions had been invoked by the right hon. Gentleman mainly responsible for this war? In 1875 the despatches between the Home Government and that of India, in reference to the new title of the Queen, were repeatedly asked for by the Opposition of that day, but were refused for high State reasons. He could not conceive what malignant spirit had induced the Colonial Secretary to publish the despatches between himself and the Governors of the Colonies in regard to the King's new title. The first was—
"Mr. Chamberlain to Governor-General, the Earl of Minto (Canada), and Governor-General the Earl of Hopetoun (Australia); sent 7.10 p.m., January 29th, 1901. King Edward's accession offers an opportunity of considering the Monarch's titles."
—he was not a monarch at all; he was a king—
"and I am very desirous that the separate and greatly increased importance of the colonies should be recognised if possible. I therefore venture to suggest 'King of Great Britain and Ireland and of Greater Britain beyond the seas.'"
There was a fine suggestion, flamboyant enough for a signboard for a Birmingham shop.
"It is possible that some of the self-governing colonies might desire more special recognition, as King of Canada, King of Australia, but this would give rise to very great difficulty. Other self-governing colonies, viz., New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Cape of Good Hope, and Natal could hardly be excluded. It would be also desirable to refer to the Crown colonies, all of which would be covered by the expression I propose. I request that you will consult your Ministers most confidentially."
—everything was mystery with the Colonial Secretary—
"and inquire whether such recognition by the King would be gratifying to them, and, if so, whether they approve of the proposed style."
In 1876 there was one matter consistently pressed by those opposed to the Royal Titles Bill, and it was that no secret should be made of the title beforehand, and that the additional title should be made in consonance with the wishes of the people of this country and of India. But this new title was to be made in consonance with the wishes of the Colonial Secretary, and of no one else. At the very time that that despatch was
464
written Queen Victoria was lying dead, and her son was mourning for her, but the Colonial Secretary was devising a flamboyant title for her successor. The Queen was not buried until 4th February, and that horrible epistle was, from mere vanity, despatched on 29th January, by telegram. Everything was done by telegram by the Colonial Secretary except when we wanted to know the reverses in the war. The Governor-General of Canada took time to consider the matter, and did not answer the telegram until two days after the Queen was buried; while the Earl of Hopetoun, Governor-General of Australia, did not answer until 8th February. They were more decorous than the right hon. Gentleman, who wished to worship the rising sun. He wondered, in respect to the very flamboyant title which the Colonial Secretary wished to give to the King, that his imagination had not done better. Had the right hon. Gentleman asked him, he could have suggested something from the title of the Prince of Siam, who, he believed, described himself as the brother of the sun, half brother to the moon, absolute master of the ebb and flow of the tide, and supreme lord of twenty-four golden umbrellas. The scandal was that the time of the House of Commons had been sacrificed for two hours over a Bill of this kind for the gratification of the Colonial Secretary, when they had not the time to discuss such things as the famine in India. Such a thing was treating parliamentary institutions with contempt. He did not think that such a Bill as this would in the slightest degree add to the dignity of the Crown, and, in his opinion, these new titles were only invented to cover the ignominy and defeat which the Empire had suffered.
MR. DILLON: I take a serious view of this Bill, and I desire to ask the House in the first place what they believe the intention of the Bill to be. It is not right for the Government to suggest alterations in the title of the Sovereign without some solid justification for that course. This Bill has been submitted to the House without a single word of argument or justification. If the Government had placed before the House any argument for this proposal, that

465
argument, I take it, would have been the argument of former days, of binding the colonies together, but it would have been a much wiser course to allow the colonies to take the initiative in this matter; that was not done. In this particular instance the change in the title of the Sovereign had come entirely from the Home Government, and not from the colonies. I have never been a believer in this Imperialism, which is supposed to have come from the colonies, and I do not believe that the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman during the eight years he has held the office of Colonial Secretary will meet with success, because I do not believe it will bind the colonies closer to this country, and I believe that the action of the Colonial Secretary will result in bringing a hitch between them and the home Government which will end all his policy. But even if I believed in this policy I do not believe the present policy of forcing upon the colonies such changes as we are now considering would be the best means of attaining the ends of the Imperialists.
Let us consider for a moment the purport of the Bill. We have been told by the First Lord of the Treasury that, although legislation is not to be allowed to fix the new Royal titles, His Majesty's advisers will advise him to add the words "King of the British Dominions, and of all British Dominions Beyond the Seas." First of all, that is a notice to us that Ireland has nothing to do with it. She is not British. Whatever meaning you attribute to "dominions," they are British, and not Irish colonies. You set aside Ireland, and by these titles gratuitously advertise the fact that Ireland is an outcast, and is not to have any share in the glories of the colonies or the Empire. I welcome the statement that we are to have no benefit from the colonies or the trade of the British Empire. While all your self-governing colonies have been prospering, Ireland has been perishing, and therefore I think you are wise in denying Ireland any share in the titles. That will be taken notice of in Ireland, and if we are not to have any part of the so called glory, which you evidently consider it to be, let us at least have the power and advantage of taking our rank and position as a Power. Let us have
466
the freedom your colonies enjoy if we are not to have any share in the governing centre of the Empire. That is the first remark I make with regard to this Bill. It bars us having a share, and I register our assent to it. These are British colonies, and the King of this country is King of Great Britain and Ireland. Now, at the beginning of the new century, you place against Ireland a bar sinister. If, as the inferior partner, we are to be abandoned, and the predominant partner only is to take notice of the benefits from across the sea, we must have corresponding advantages.
Now, as to the second branch of this subject. Now that you have decided, in spite of the advice of Lord Rosebery, to assume the title of "King of All the British Dominions Beyond the Seas," we come to a much more serious matter, which hon. Members who regard this Bill so lightly do not appear to have the least conception of. Contrast the treatment which the House has received on this occasion with the treatment it received when the last alteration was made. When Mr. Disraeli, in 1876, suggested an addition to the Royal titles, he introduced it in a long and historical speech, and the debate upon the Second Reading consumed at least ten nights of parliamentary time; and I venture to say that it would never have entered into the minds of anybody in this House in those days to introduce a Royal Titles Bill in the last week of the session. When we compare the importance and gravity of the change which it is now proposed to make in the titles of the Sovereign with the change that was made in 1876, in my judgment, at least, the present proposal is quite as grave and as far-reaching as that made in 1876. The proposal to add the title of Empress to the Royal titles was, I have always thought, a mischievous thing, from the evils of which we are now suffering; but in that debate Mr. Disraeli was careful to show that it should only be a local title. But this title "King of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas" is to be an integral part of the title of the King, as was the case when upon the Union of Ireland the King was declared to be "King of Great Britain and Ireland"; so that it is a more important

467
change with regard to the Sovereign of this country.
Now let me ask, what are the British dominions beyond the seas? Then are the self-governing colonies, and so far as they are concerned, if they had asked for this Bill, that would have been a very strong case for the new titles, always providing that they satisfied the home Government that a strong local feeling existed in this matter. Then there are the Crown colonies and the Uganda Protectorate, West Africa, and Egypt. Is Egypt a dominion of the British Crown? Is East Africa a dominion of the British Crown? What is to be said as to the Protectorates? We ought to have been told of this before, and if it be true that this title is to extend to Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa, then you have this embarrassment, among others, that every session we have well founded complaints from various quarters that the British flag flies over slavery. We know it flourishes all over the Soudan, as it does also in East Africa, and now you are going to bring the matter closer home, because you are going to proclaim the King Sovereign of those countries in a special way.
But a more important consideration still, to my mind, is this. If there be any value at all in the institution of the Throne and King, that value must be found only in its historical associations. It is only that which gives the King of England or any sovereign in the world any value whatever. Nobody supposes that any country that had lost the continuity of its throne would deliberately set to work to reconstruct it. The whole history of the last generation shows that the only ground on which the Throne can stand is that of its historic associations. The traditions which surround the Throne in this country are very great; they are traditions of liberty, and it is upon those traditions that the greatness of the Throne depends, but you are now by this extension of the title to bring that Throne into direct contact with a multitude of Governments which are not dominated by any traditions of liberty. By this title the King is to be King of the Uganda Protectorate, of West Africa, of the Cape Coast, of the Gold Coast, and King of innumerable slaves, of at least hirty Governments under which no
468
principle of liberty is practised, and I maintain, ridiculous as it will appear to you, that in making this change you are striking a blow at the stability of the British Crown. It is part and parcel of the whole policy of Imperialism, and it is for that and that alone that this change is introduced. Looking at it even from the point of an English Imperialist, I should think the proper amendment would be, instead, to adopt the description, "all the freely-governed dependencies of the Crown." That would include all the free | governing colonies, and would have the British colonies brought in direct relationship with savage races or any community where slavery is practised. But I confess the nature of the titles is to my mind a matter of minor importance, the real thing is what is the object which is aimed at; the object is the same as that which was based on the policy, which was initiated at the time of the two Jubilee processions, upon which the Government has floated so triumphantly. We are to have a great performance next year. We are to have another great display next year, with a promenade of various loyal colonists, Indians, and negroes from the Soudan and West Africa—who, we are told, may be used in the next European war—to intimate to Europe that this is a great Empire, and, above all, to maintain the present Government and to keep up the Imperialistic game. I hope the people will take note of how that game is played. Prom the last procession the Irish were the only absentees. Every other dependency of the Crown sent loyal representatives to take part, but the only so called representatives of Ireland were the Royal Irish Constabulary who rode behind the carriage of Her Majesty—the representatives of the loyalists of Ireland! Four years have since passed, and the policy of Imperialism has cost you £200,000,000 and the lives of 30,000 men. When the procession next year passes through the streets of this city mother of your great dependencies will have dropped out. The Cape, which was loyal then, and which, of all the colonies, came forward at the Jubilee and offered a ship for the Navy, has been driven by this base and wretched policy of Impe-

469
rialism into rebellion, which may end in revolution. When that time comes, I hope the people of this country, beginning to suffer from the pinches of depressed trade and overburdened with taxation, will calculate how much they are paying for this gaudy game. The present proposal, the object of which is to increase the Imperialistic enthusiasm of the country, will be a blow struck at the real prosperity and power of the nation, and because every blow so struck increases the poverty and misery of our country I shall oppose the Bill at every stage.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo is entirely beyond my comprehension. A great part of that speech was to the effect that this Bill will deal a very severe blow to the prosperity of the nation which the hon. Member and his friends have always professed to seek to destroy. ["No."] If I was an enemy of this country, and a Bill was introduced which I thought was likely to strike a telling blow against its strength and security, I should support that measure. The hon. Member, however, after arguing that the Bill would strike a blow at Imperialism and the Imperial principle, wound up by saying that the Imperial principle was one which he would always uphold and protect, and, therefore, he should vote against the Bill. I do not wonder that the hon. Member and his friends look upon this measure with very great bitterness. The Bill is the crowning stone of the great Imperial movement which has been going on for some years. Where was the great Imperial principle born? It was born in Ireland, and the hammer of Home Rule, with which hon. gentlemen opposite thought to shatter the Empire, has proved to be the hammer that has welded the Empire into a great and powerful whole, more closely connected than ever before. I take this Bill to be a gracious acknowledgment on the part of the King, the Government, and the House of Commons of the noble part the colonies have recently played, and it will be regarded by the colonies in that light. It does not in the least interfere with our legal relations with the colonies, but it is a sign and symbol that we recognise the
470
manifestation of solidarity on the part of the colonies in time of danger and trial. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that this country had a noble tradition of freedom and liberty. In what other country in the world does liberty exist so completely? Where else would hon. gentlemen be permitted to come to Parliament, take the oath of allegiance, and then go back to Ireland to preach open treason?[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Withdraw."]
*MR. SPEAKERwas understood to call for order, but in the uproar his voice could not be heard in the Press gallery.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I will not pursue that further. Even hon. gentlemen from Ireland cannot deny that perfect freedom of the subject is permitted by the Constitution of this country, and if the Bill has the effect of pointing out to the people of the colonies, and others whom it may concern, that the glory of this country is its freedom in all respects, the measure is one undoubtedly deserving our support and admiration. The hon. Member seemed to be in a slight tangle. He admits the King is King of Great Britain and Ireland, but, in his estimation, this proclamation in some way dissevers Ireland from all connection with the rest of the kingdom. I do not know what he means.
MR. DILLON: It is proposed to call these dominions beyond the seas British, and we are not British.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Ireland belongs to Great Britain, and is a part of the British Empire. Whatever the hon. Member may say or think, he is and will remain British. Ireland is just as much a part of the British Empire as Scotland or Wales, and when the King's title is proclaimed to the nation at large, Ireland will have that honourable share in it which the hon. Member for East Mayo so intensely desires. It cannot be denied that in the immediate past there has been on the part of our colonies an indication of loyalty to the mother country which no one a few years ago could have hoped

471
ever to see. Long before the Coronation the war will have ceased, and whatever hon. members may think, the action of Great Britain in South Africa has not alienated a single loyal man. ["Oh, oh!"] We have not alienated the Boers, for they were alienated at the start; they were not colonists of ours. We have not alienated the Dutch in Cape Colony, for they never professed to be loyal to us—["Oh, oh!"]—though I guard myself by saying there are a minority of the Dutch who are and have all along been loyal to Great Britain. But I venture to say that at the Coronation we should have a large representation of loyal representatives from South Africa, the country to which I believe we shall bring prosperity and freedom.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: As far as I am concerned, the King may adopt a separate title for each of the dependencies of the Crown, beginning by calling himself the Emperor of the Island of Fiji. There is, however, one particular, at any rate, in which this Bill requires amendment, and in Committee I should propose that whatever new title His Majesty may see fit to assume he should no longer continue to call himself "Defender of the Faith." That title was conferred on the English King by Pope Leo for his defence of the Catholic Church against the attacks of Luther, and subsequently, when the authority of the Pope and of the Catholic Church was overthrown and disregarded in this country by Henry VIII., Pope Leo withdrew the title. It is quite true that afterwards the English Parliament passed an Act directing the King to continue to assume the title of "Defender of the Faith," but the whole meaning of the words was lost when the Pope revoked the title. That His Majesty should continue to call himself "Defender" of a faith which, when he ascends the throne, he describes as "superstitious and idolatrous," is a piece of absurdity.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not speak in terms of disrespect of the Sovereign.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I did not use any term of disrespect to the Sovereign. His Majesty in these matters
472
has neither power nor discretion, and only does as he is directed by Act of Parliament. It is absurd that one Act of Parliament should compel His Majesty to stigmatise as idolatrous and superstitious the very faith of which, by another Act of Parliament, he is described as the "Defender."
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order in describing the state of the law as absurd, but he did use words—I do not think he intended to do so—which attributed the action which he describes as absurd rather to the Sovereign personally.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I should be very sorry to attribute to His Majesty any of the absurdities which are continually being enacted by Parliament in his name. If Parliament would only leave the King alone, I think he would very willingly do without this title of "Defender of the Faith," and also refrain from making the absurd declaration which he is obliged to make immediately after his accession. There are millions of people in addition to Roman Catholics, in this country and over the seas, who object to the title of "Defender of the Faith." Dissenters disapprove of the title, having reference simply to the Church of England. I am surprised that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite should have been guilty of the indiscretion of saying that the occurrences in South Africa have not alienated a single loyal man from Great Britain in that country, and that none of the Dutch were ever loyal.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I expressly stated there were a minority who were loyal.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is an exact contradiction of all that has been said again and again by the supporters of the Government, and by nobody more emphatically than the Colonial Secretary. We have heard over and over again of the extreme loyalty and wonderful forbearance of the Dutch colonists all over South Africa ever since this war commenced, and now, because they have not risen in open rebellion and taken up arms, they are sneered at by the right hon. and gallant

473
Gentleman as people unworthy of notice, as people who never were loyal, and therefore unaffected by the progress of the war. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman forget that the majority of the Parliament of Cape Town was Dutch, and that the Dutch Ministry and Parliament subscribed for the upkeep of the British Navy of this country £30,000 per annum? We are told now that these men were never loyal, that their position need not be considered, and that nothing has alienated one loyal man. That is a statement which will not be endorsed by those best acquainted with South Africa. I had not long ago the pleasure of speaking to a gentleman who held a high position in the Government and the Ministry of Cape Colony, and he told me that whereas for twenty-five years he had lived upon the best possible terms with Dutch colonists of the Cape, since this war commenced the disaffection amongst the Dutch had become so pronounced that it was now a painful thing for an Englishman to live there, remembering the good terms upon which they lived before the war. A more extraordinary statement and a more extraordinary occasion to choose to make such a statement I never heard of in my life.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that Imperialism was born in Ireland. I never heard that argument before, but I do say that Irish people, in common with millions of the best people in this country—I do not use the term in the sense in which it is used with reference to people who mix in high society, such as lords and dukes and things like that I mean the masses of the working people of this country, who have to pay the taxes, and I say in common with them, and in common with the Irish people, that we hold that there are two kinds of Imperialism—one which is perfectly legitimate and reasonable, and which populated and developed the Australian continent and New Zealand, and which induced millions of people to seek fresh fields for their energies in those colonies which were open to them. That is the Imperialism which is legitimate and reasonable and has resulted in much benefit to millions of the Irish people as well as to the Scotch and the English people. That is the Imperialism
474
which is legitimate that is the Imperialism which the late Mr. Gladstone would have supported, and which millions of the sober-minded people of this country are prepared to support, because it is a natural development which does not necessitate either robbery or bloodshed. Imperialism of that kind I do not imagine anybody would object to but the Imperialism of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says this is the crowning act is the Imperialism which is illustrated by the great imperialistic spirit which has recently spread over the country. What kind is that? That is not the Imperialism which developed and populated Australia and New Zealand. It is not like the Imperialism which opened up the great desert tracts of Canada to the working classes. No. The Imperialism which the hon. and gallant Gentleman glorifies, and which he says the people are steeped in to the lips, is the Imperialism of South Africa. This Imperialism does not go to a country awaiting development, but to countries where other people have already gone.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order order! The hon. Member cannot go into that subject upon the Titles Bill, and he cannot discuss the question of the Imperial policy in South Africa.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I think every gentleman sitting in the House will do me the justice of admitting that what you, Sir, have taken exception to was in reply to the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I will not pursue the matter further beyond saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to this Bill as the result of the Imperial spirit which had sprung up in this country. He alluded to South Africa, and said that this Bill was a reward for the action of the colonial troops in the South African War, and having said those things, I thought that I was justified in saying that the kind of Imperialism he referred to was the wrong Imperialism, and was not an Imperialism which should be marked or rewarded in any way, much less by conferring titles upon the Sovereign. As you, Mr. Speaker, have decided that it is not in order for me to go further into the matter, I say that I object to this Bill not so

475
much because it confers another title or two upon the Sovereign, but I object because even on the showing of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman this Bill is the result of the war in South Africa. It is the result of the action of the colonies in sending troops to fight in South Africa, and it is a sort of reward and glorification for all the treasure that has been wasted, and the blood which has been shed in South Africa. If this be the object of this Bill, then it is a measure which I hope every man who loves justice and fair play will vote against, because, so far from marking our approval of this war in any way by giving additional titles to the Sovereign, I think it is a thing which really ought to be the cause of national mourning and regret. You cannot read your newspaper any day without finding that there is still bloodshed, misery, and wretchedness existing everywhere in South Africa, and in view of those circumstances, and the fact that the war is not yet over—and no man is able now to get up and put a period to the war—the time is singularly ill-chosen for conferring new titles. As far as I am concerned—and I believe it is the opinion of many other Irish Members—we do not object to this Bill on account of any particular title which Parliament may authorise the King to assume. These titles make very little difference to us, but we object because we believe that the time is inopportune, and our votes will be recorded as one of the long list of protests we have made, and which I hope we shall continue to make, when Parliament meets again,
against the injustice and the iniquity of this cruel and robbers' war in South Africa.
MR. O'MARA: I rejoice with the hon. Member for East Mayo at the fact that this is the first time for a hundred years that Ireland has dissociated herself altogether from the Imperialism which is at the bottom of this Bill. If at the passing of this Bill conferring additional titles upon the Sovereign of this country in respect of other dominions beyond the sea we dissociated ourselves from all responsibility in conferring these titles upon the King, I cannot help thinking that it is only fair that those colonies should share in the expenses of this great Empire.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is quite out of order.
MR. O'MARA: I was only wishing to point out that in a new Bill conferring additional titles on the Sovereign which enables the colonies to share in the glories of the Empire and the so-called glories of Imperialism they should also be called upon to share some portion of the expenses of this Empire.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of contributions from the colonies.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 458.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir Alex. F.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cranborne, Viscount

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Caldwell, James

Crombie, John William

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carlile, William Walter

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Arrol, Sir William

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balcarres, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Duke, Henry Edward

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Chapman, Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

Charrington, Spencer

Elibank, Master of

Banbury, Frederick George

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

Bignold, Arthur

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fisher, William Hayes

Broadhurst, Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Bull, William James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Randles, John S.

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Leveson-Gower, Fred K. N. S.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Reid, James (Greenock)

Gardner, Ernest

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Rickett, J. Compton

Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Round, James

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

Rutherford, John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John Cumming

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Grant, Corrie

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Maconochie, A. W.

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Majendie, James A. H.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Milton, Viscount

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

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Mitchell, William

Spear, John Ward

Harris, Fredk. Leverton

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Harwood, George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Mord, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Strachey, Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

Sturt, Hn Humphry Napier

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Henderson, Alexander

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Tennant, Harold John

Higginbottom, S. W.

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Holland, William Henry

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry

Moss, Samuel

Thornton, Percy M.

Horniman, Frederick John

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hoult, Joseph

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Howard, John (Kent Faversh.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Norman, Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Parker, Gilbert

White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea

Partington, Oswald

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Paulton, James Mellor

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Keswick, William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Lambton, Hn. Frederick W.

Pierpoint, Robert

Wilson, A Stanley (Yorks, E. R.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Plummer, Walter R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lawson, John Grant

Pretyman, Ernest George

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lesse, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Purvis, Robert

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pym, C. Gup

NOES.

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

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Doherty, William

Ambrose, Robert

Gilhooly, James

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hammond, John

O Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Boland, John

Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Dowd, John

Boyle, James

Hayden, John Patrick

O Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Burns, John

Joyce, Michael

O'Malley, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leamy, Edmund

O'Mara, James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Lundon, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Channing, Francis Allston

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Clancy, John Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Reddy, M.

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Fadden, Edward

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Govern, T.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Crean, Eugene

Murnaghan, George

Roche, John

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Daly, James

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway, N.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dillon, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Doogan, P. C.

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

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

Duffy, William J.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Field, William

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. FLYNN: I am surprised that a Bill of this magnitude and involving important principles has been moved without a word of explanation. I think the House ought to understand what is proposed.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I have already explained what is proposed to be done by the Bill. I explained it once on the Committee stage and once on the Report stage of the resolution.
MR. FLYNN: The hon. Member did not go at any length into the reasons for the Bill. He did not state the reasons why His Majesty's Government have changed their attitude with regard to the Bill. He did not explain why the colonies of Canada and Australia have been able to induce His Majesty's Government to change their policy, and why this country is to be committed to an expenditure of a capital of £2,000,000, and the Lord knows how much of an annual expenditure, without any guarantee that the cable will pay. There is another point on which I wish to be informed in the course of the discussion. This is the first time that the Government have engaged in an enterprise with the resources of the country at their back against a private enterprise—namely, the Eastern Telegraph Company. I maintain that the Government in this matter have completely changed their mind in less than a couple of years, and it is not difficult for anyone who has read the proceedings of the Committee, and who have followed the correspondence issued from the Colonial Office, to see bow the Government proceeded from step to step until the Colonial Secretary capitulated to Australia and Canada in order that these colonies might have a reduction of the tariff for cablegrams.
480
The Government are engaging in a dangerous enterprise, and committing the country to the expenditure of a large sum of money. I find from the Colonial Office correspondence which has been issued that the Government in April, 1899, laid down two principles which are being flatly contradicted by this Bill The first principle was—
"Her Majesty's Government have never concealed their opinion that the construction of a Pacific cable is of greater importance to Australia and Canada than to the United Kingdom, and they would not have been disposed to recommend Parliament to aid it but for their desire to afford the support and assistance of the Mother Country to her great self-governing colonies in a project the success of which cannot fail to promote Imperial unity."
The other principle, which, to my mind, very much more strongly emphasised the view of the Government, was—
"That Her Majesty's Government consider the responsibility for constructing and working the cable should be borne by the Governments of Canada and Australia, to whom any profits which may accrue would fall."
I think the House is entitled to know what has occurred since April, 1899, to cause the Government to change their mind, and why, instead of allowing the responsibility for the construction and working of this cable to be borne by the Governments of Canada and Australia, this Government should take upon themselves the responsibility of conducting the cable. There is a clause in the Bill which places on this country the entire responsibility for the annual maintenance of the cable if it does not pay. It seems to me that the Colonial Secretary had changed his mind on this matter, as on many others, and we know that when the Colonial Office moves in a certain direction the whole of the Government have to follow. [Hear, hear.] Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that in connection with this Bill? If he does, I think he should give the House an intelligent argument and not an inarticulate interruption. Clause 3 of the Bill says:—
"The amount required in each year for the annual expenses of the Pacific cable, including any such expenses incurred before the passing of this Act, shall be defrayed out of the receipts arising in connection with the cable, and, so far as those receipts are not sufficient, out of moneys provided by Parliament."

481
I am perfectly convinced that the House is not generally aware of the importance of this matter, and that at least the majority of the members cannot have read the correspondence which was issued in 1899 and 1900. A long correspondence passed between the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company and the Government, and the House will be interested to mark the proceedings. The Telegraph Company naturally concluded that the Foreign Office was the authority to whom the correspondence should be addressed, and they accordingly addressed their letter to the Prime Minister. After some weeks the Telegraph Company was informed that the matter was in the hands of the Colonial Office, and two months passed before the Telegraph Company got the courtesy of a reply to their most important communication.
What is the nature of the case put forward by the Eastern Telegraph Company? I need not say that neither I nor any of my colleagues have any interest in upholding a monopoly by the company, but we wish to oppose the proposal of the Government to embark on a scheme which is to run in direct opposition to private enterprise. This company have spent millions in the development of their telegraph system. Now, instead of this Pacific cable being undertaken by a private company, relying upon the scheme paying because of its merits, we have the Government of the day advancing the capital and pledging themselves to a large annual expenditure in order to compete with the Eastern Telegraph Company. That company have provided a system of telegraphic communication between Canada and Australia which has given satisfaction, and with regard to which no complaint has been made. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] I suppose the hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking later on, but I would ask hon. Members' attention to this fact that in the whole of the correspondence there is no allegation on the part of the Colonial Office or anybody else that the Telegraph Company have not done their duty properly. They may have a monopoly to some extent, but in the very last communication they made they state that they are willing to grant most reasonable terms. They go on to state that the cable traffic between Canada and Australia
482
has been greatly exaggerated by those interested in this enterprise. In the evidence brought before the Pacific Cable Committee it was shown that in September, 1899, the number of messages exchanged between Canada and Australia was thirty-five, and, taking these at an average of thirteen words per message, there would be 5,460 words per annum, and at the present tariff of 6s. 3d. per word, that would represent £1,706 per annum. The House was asked to undertake responsibility for £2,000,000 of capital, and a cost of £25,000 or £30,000 a year for maintenance in respect of an enterprise which only brings in £1,706 of revenue altogether. No doubt the main motive in tins matter of the Australian colonies was the expected reduction of the tariff. That would not be denied. We have no objection to that, but I presume there is a point at which the cable would be carried on at a loss. If the Australian colonies or the mother country want better terms and a reduction of the tariff, let them pay for it, and not come to the taxpayers of this country, who are already overburdened with other charges. The main object is the protection of the cable. They point out that on the traffic between Europe and Australia the rate at one time was 9s. 4d. a word; the Australian colonies thought this rather high, and they negotiated with the Eastern Telegraph Company with a view to the reduction of the tariff. After some time the company agreed to a reduction of 4s., but stipulated that they should be partially guaranteed by the colonies against loss. Who complained of that arrangement? The colonies! It did not pay, and the Australian colonies themselves reopened the matter, and, notwithstanding the advice of the Eastern Telegraph Company, they raised it to the present rate of 4s. 9d. per word. No doubt it would be very good business for the colonies if, at the expense of the mother country, they could get this cable laid and get half, or even one-third, of the present cable traffic which passes through the Eastern Telegraph Company's cable. If only one-third of the traffic could be diverted this cable would pay, but the Eastern Telegraph Company would require compensation. Is Parliament prepared to compensate

483
this company, and if not, why not? But it is impossible for this company to pay; the cable traffic to Australia is not increasing at all. The Australian colonies themselves in the last negotiations with the company had to raise the rate, because the lower rate resulted in a loss to them under their guarantee, and no doubt there is nothing they would like better than a reduction in the tariff at the expense of the mother country. The decrease in cable traffic in 1897 was 80 per cent. on the number of words cabled, and it has further decreased since. I think this House should ask why the last despatch from the Eastern Telegraph Company, making certain offers of reduction, which offers were communicated to the Australian colonies, was not answered, and not even referred to.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me the date he refers to?
MR. PLYNN: September 28th, 1899. The offer of the cable company was this—
"The proposal recently submitted to the Australasian Colonies by the companies for extending the Cape cable to Australia not only provides for an immediate reduction of tariff to 4s. per word, but involves the application to the Australasian traffic of the same sliding-scale principle as adopted for the Cape traffic, by means of which the tariff might, without any sacrifice on the part of the Australasian Colonies, be further reduced in 190i to 3s. 6.1. per word, to 3s. in i902, and to 2s. 6d. in 1903, provided the traffic satisfactorily responds to the proposed reductions."
That was a fair offer, and why is it there was no reference to that letter, and that Parliament has no information as to the view the Australian colonies took of that letter? I can quite understand Australia liking to get a reduction in the price of cable traffic, and I do not blame them for their action if they take the responsibility themselves; but the Eastern Telegraph Company urge that it will not pay on the present basis of work done. I understand upon the present amount of traffic between Australia and Canada what will be affected by this is only 5 per cent. of the whole, and I should think the House would hesitate before embarking in such an enterprise. I want to know something more about this offer by the
484
telegraph company — whether it was considered reasonable or otherwise. Is the Government justified in embarking in a large expenditure when this strong opposition is already at work? With regard to the possibilities of its paying a large revenue, let me read this statement from the letter of the company of the 19th July, 1899:—
"With regard to the twentieth paragraph of your Lordship's letter, I have already pointed out the fallacy of supposing that there will be a large development of revenue arising from the traffic between Canada and the United States and Australia"—
I would ask the House to consider the two branches of the subject; there is the amount of cable traffic between Australia and Canada and the amount between Canada and this country to be considered—
"or that the lowering of rates will immediately increase the general revenue arising from the Australasian traffic. I am at a loss to understand the statement in this paragraph that 'it is from these sources' (really nonexistent) 'rather than by any diversion of business from the Eastern Extension Company that the new cable will look for employment, and that there is no intention of working the new cable on other than commercial lines, and at remunerative rates.'"
Now what is the reply—
"If His Majesty's Government really imagines that the traffic between Canada and the United States of America and Australasia, together with the increased volume of business which a reasonable lowering of rates is expected to produce, can give remunerative employment to a Pacific cable, this is an absolute delusion; for the Report of the Committee avows that, even with the diversion of between one-third and a half of the companies' European-Australasian traffic and the estimated, and indeed over-estimated, annual increase of 10 per cent. (which my former letter showed to be greatly exaggerated), no profit, taking into consideration the necessity for a duplicate cable, can be expected from the scheme for at least ten years, even with the aid of His Majesty's Government in raising the money at 2½ or 2¾ per cent. Such a scheme, I submit, is not framed on commercial lines."
My first objection to this is that it is an unwarrantable interference with private rights. What did Mr. Raikes say? The late Mr. Raikes, when Postmaster General, said—
"It would be without precedent for the Government itself to become interested in such a scheme in such way as to constitute itself a competitor with existing commercial enterprises carried on by citizens of the British Empire."

485
And the permanent official of the Post Office before the Cable Committee gave evidence to the same effect.
The whole weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against the scheme. The whole evidence goes to prove that the scheme has been adopted hastily, and that this is a policy pledging the Government of this country to an expenditure of £2,000,000 without adequate consideration. One understands municipal enterprise for the supply of such things as gas and water and other things now regarded as necessaries of life, but that is obviously an entirely different thing to embarking in a scheme to which you were originally opposed, and in regard to which you have no guarantee that it will pay, and which, if it is to be an advantage, will be an advantage to Canada and Australia, but not to this country. We know the argument that this Pacific cable will be an all-British cable; but if only that is the idea, why not take the cable round by way of the Cape, which the Colonial Secretary admitted would be of great strategical importance, and which the Eastern Telegraph Company agreed to do without asking any money from this House? There is not an argument left in this enterprise; it is nothing but another development of the shoddy Imperialism which has met us at every turn in this House for the last two years. If it is necessary to have the cable, why not let the Colonies make it? But why make it at all when an existing company is willing to make a communication through the Cape of Good Hope, which is admitted to be a more economical route? There is one thing in regard to this matter which one almost hesitates to touch, but which raises a rather curious aspect of the question. One of the prime movers in this matter is Lord Strathcona, who is, as everybody knows, a man of unimpeachable integrity, but it does not enhance my confidence to know that he is to be one of the directors of this company, and he is largely interested in the government of Canada, and in the Pacific cable, and other matters. Now in the corporation of my native city such a thing as that would be looked upon with the gravest suspicion. I think no case has been made out for this Bill, but that a strong case has been
486
made out against it. I think the making of this all-British cable has been gone about in the most expensive manner, and that after the offer made in September, 1899, by the company, the embarkation in this wild-cat scheme shows in itself that the House is losing all its sense of commercial undertakings.
*MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I regret the absence of our chief the hon. Member for Hythe, who is chairman of the Telegraph Committee. I desire to tell the House in a few words the story of the cable communication with Australia. In 1870, when Australian communication was desired, the firm of John Pender and Co. jockeyed—I am sorry to have to use the word—a certain portion of the Australian Government into constructing an enormous land line, which considerably increased the cost of cable communication. When that company was established it worked so badly and inadequately that Government subsidies were obtained to the amount of £32,000 a year. When the company got their cable line to Australia they charged enormous rates, first of all £10 or £12 a message, which on pressure being brought to bear was reduced to 10s. 6d. a word, and then 7s. 6d. a word. Only by the Australian Government promising a large subsidy was the rate reduced to 4s. a word, and to-day we have got it down to 3s. 6d. To this company and its satellites we in Australia now pay £1,200 a day for telegraphing to and from England; they receive £400,000 a year. That is an enormous sum, and it gives an enormous profit to the company. I know no monopoly in the world that is doing more injury to trade than the concentrated companies represented by the Eastern Telegraph Company and its six or seven satellites. Hon. members opposite do not realise how much our trade has suffered from these high cable charges. Take the case of India; the rate to India has been kept at 4s. a word at a time when the rate to Australia, double the distance, is 3s. 6d. a word. Why is that? Because they have the whip-hand in competition. I once described John Pender and Co. as an octopus which,

487
with its tentacles in every direction, is sucking the life-blood out of the Empire, For the first time now we have an opportunity of establishing an alternative line to Australia. The Pacific cable will stretch over a great extent of water and touch many islands of the Pacific belonging to the British Empire which are now without cable communication. The hon. Member quoted some remarks of Mr. Raikes against the cable. As a matter of fact, Mr. Raikes was one of a board of directors of a company formed to construct the line from Canada to Australia. I was another of the directors. I knew that Mr. Raikes strongly believed in the project, The House of Commons and the country have lately come to the opinion that the cables of the British Empire should become the property of the Government. We shall never have a great Empire until we have cheapened cable communications to the lowest possible limit, and so annihilated distance. We are determined to have the cables of the world in the hands of the Government, for if the Government purchases them the tariff can be reduced by half. The hon. Member referred to the position of Lord Strathcona in connection with this cable project, and declared there was something suspicious in his action. Lord Strathcona is well known everywhere for his high and honourable character. I know that Lord Strathcona dislikes the work, that he has other interests, and that nothing would please him more than to be relieved of it; but he is bound by the Government he represents to occupy a seat on the board. I trust therefore that the hon. Member will withdraw a most unfair, ungenerous, and unfounded statement against the character and reputation of Lord Strathcona. I will leave other speakers to deal with the terms of the contract. All I know is that the Canadian Government are doing the lion's share of the work. I know it is the intention of the Canadian Government, as I hope it is of the English Government also, to construct a cable from England to Canada, and I look forward to the day when we shall have sixpenny telegrams to India, shilling telegrams to Australia, and penny telegrams to America. I am sure that that day will come; and I regard the scheme
488
now before the House as a great step forward towards the breaking up of one of the greatest monopolies the world has ever seen, and towards the consolidation of the Empire. I thank the House for its attention.
MR. O'MARAsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the fact that the cable companies had a great monopoly; but the House should recollect that the hon. Gentleman had spent the greater portion of his life as a newspaper proprietor in Australia. He did not, however, contend that that had influenced the hon. Member's views. It would be very far from him to attribute any such motive to the hon. Gentleman, who was a most enlightened man; but still the fact that he had been a newspaper proprietor, and had to pay very heavy charges for cables, might have coloured his view somewhat as to the necessity for a competitive scheme. When the hon. Member complained of high charges he forgot to tell the House that for the distance the present charge of 4s. 9d. a word was absolutely the cheapest telegraph charge in the world. The hon. Member did not deny that.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I decidedly deny it. The cable companies have always treated me with the greatest possible consideration, and I have no feeling at all against them.
MR. O'MARAsaid that it could not be denied that for the distance 4s. 9d. was the cheapest telegraph charge in the world. Therefore he thought that the complaints of the hon. Member were to a great extent discounted. Of course the scheme before the House had emanated from the Colonial Office. It was a curious coincidence that that evening two schemes exemplifying the latest development of Imperialism should have been under discussion, namely, the Royal Titles Bill and that Bill. In 1897 the Colonial Secretary invited the colonies to consider the advisability of that scheme. A Committee was thereupon appointed, not a single member of which had any practical acquaintance with cable or telegraph work. Two members of the Committee were Englishmen, and

489
four were colonials. Of course the Committee were very carefully chosen, and they reported as favourably as they possibly could in accordance with the wishes of the Colonial Secretary. His point was that the Colonial Secretary was alone responsible for the Committee, and that the scheme was the outcome of his Imperialism. As he had stated, the Committee reported as favourably as they possibly could, but even that Report ought to have opened the eyes of any ordinary business man as to the business side of the scheme. The Committee reported that the scheme would lose in the first year £12,000, after spending in construction between £1,500,000 and £1,800,000; but by assuming an increase of ten per cent. in the business, the Committee stated that the scheme might pay in some indefinite number of years. He desired to lay particular stress on that. In fact, the Report was so unfavourable that it was hung up in the Colonial Office for two and a-half years, and did not see the light of day until the very end of the session, when the Colonial Secretary now tried to smuggle it through without sufficient discussion. With reference to the business aspect of the scheme, there was no doubt whatever that even at the lower rate of 3s. 6d. per word there was not sufficient business to pay for two cables to Australia. In addition to that, it should be remembered that, apart from the scheme before the House, there would be another cable to Australia which was to be laid down by the Eastern Telegraph Company from the Cape. Accordingly, if that scheme were to be carried out, there would be three cables, and they would not be able to pay their working expenses. Of course it would be a great advantage to the colonial Governments, and to colonists generally, to have low cable rates, but he could not see what benefit it would be to the mother country. A few individual firms who had business relations with the colonies might benefit, but he could not see what benefit would be conferred on the taxpayers of the country. Consequently, as far as the reduction of rates was concerned, the colonies would benefit, but England would not, and as for any chance of the scheme ever making a profit, it could not
490
be said by any hon. Member who had studied the official documents that the cable would ever be able to pay its way, or ever be anything but a source of expense to the English Government, and an advantage to the colonies, who never subscribed to any Imperial project whatever.
To his mind there ought to be some give and take when a scheme of this kind was initiated. But there was no give and take in this matter; nor, in fact, was there any give and take in all the exhibitions of Imperialism we had had from the colonies. The Colonial Secretary was now endeavouring to rush through the scheme, but according to the documents he had, only a few years ago, no great wish for it. Writing in 1899 to the Governor General of Canada he said that he did not regard the scheme as urgent. Therefore he could not understand why it should not be postponed until next session. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that the cable would be of comparatively small advantage to England, as one of its terminals would be in Canada and the other in Australia, and it would be administered by the colonies. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that the offer of a subsidy of £20,000 a year for twenty years was fair and generous; and he could not understand what arguments had since been used to induce the Colonial Secretary to exceed that offer. Instead of £20,000 for twenty years, they were now asked to embark on a scheme which would involve the guarantee of an unlimited amount of money, and there was, in his opinion, no possible reason why the offer of the Colonial Secretary in 1897 should have been exceeded. The most ridiculous part of the whole scheme was the creation of a board to control and work the cable. That board was to contain a very large majority of colonial members. England would be represented by three members, Canada by two, New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland by two, and New Zealand by one. There would therefore be five colonial members, as against three representatives of the home Government. He asked the House if that was a fair representation for the home Government, which proposed to

491
build the cable without any help from the colonies? He said that it was not. Then it appeared that the board would take sole possession of the cable. It was very remarkable indeed that the property of the home Government should be handed over to a board containing a majority of colonists to be used for the purposes of the colonies. The colonies, of course, would know that any loss would not fall very largely on them, and accordingly they would not use the cable in an ordinary commercial manner; and they would have every possible interest in reducing the rates, possibly to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury. The result would be a loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which the home Government would have to meet. He could not understand how such unbusinesslike machinery had been set up by the Colonial Secretary, who was reputed to have such a businesslike mind. The members of the committee could have no possible idea of how to manage a cable, or how to let out contracts for repairs and other matters. He would have to move several Amendments in Committee to that portion of the scheme in order to protect the property of the taxpayers.
There was one point in regard to the Bill which struck him, and that was that it sought to cover up something which had been already done. In fact it was an Indemnity Bill in connection with contracts which had been illegally entered into. When the resolution was in Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the contracts had been already entered into, although the House of Commons had not approved of them. The Bill also provided for the repayment of temporary loans for the purposes of the cable. That was the first information they had had of any loans in connection with the matter, and it was most illegal. He should like to know what these loans were for, and why they had been raised. They had no knowledge of those matters, and yet they were expected, with their eyes shut, to indemnify the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary for raising money without the sanction of Parliament. They had a right to know how far the House was already committed to the scheme, and how far the Colonial Secretary went
492
without parliamentary sanction to carry out his ideas. He had no intention of impeaching the personal character of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was a strange thing that general suspicion was aroused by any act of his which was not fully disclosed to the public.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON;: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member justified in casting imputations of personal motives on the Colonial Secretary?
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was getting very near the line.
MR. O'MARAsaid he did not impute any personal motives to the right hon. Gentleman. His point was that contracts had been illegally entered into, and money illegally raised, before the passage of the Act, and that such transactions had not been disclosed to Members of the House of Commons, although they were now asked to pass an indemnity measure. The right hon. the Colonial Secretary had put forward the claim in support of the subsidy that this would be an all-British line, but he understood that there was an exclusive contract between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Commercial Cable Company under which telegrams would have to pass over American lines. He therefore wished to know whether this cable was to be worked entirely by British subjects and whether any arrangements had been entered into in regard to rates. The Colonial Secretary had evidently surrendered himself body and soul to the colonies in this matter, and he only wished to say that the scheme was a hairbrained one for providing money to the colonies, who were very well able to look after themselves, for an enterprise which would involve a heavy burden on this country for the next fifty years.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Anyone who has sat in this House for the last three-quarters of an hour must have felt that the hon. Member who has just sat down was not so much concerned with the Bill as in making or insinuating charges against the Colonial Secretary. I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the House by even alluding

493
to these aspersions. I shall deal with the issue before the House—what are, in the opinion of the Government, the merits of the agreement? But before going to that I must say a word as to what has been said with regard to the connection of Lord Strathcona with this Bill. My hon. friend below the gangway said truly that everyone here respects and admires Lord Strathcona as he is respected in Canada. But it is cruel to make use of the fact that he has been selected to represent the Government on the Pacific Cable Board in order to bring charges against him.
MR. FLYNN: I made no charges against Lord Strathcona. All I said was that his Lordship should not have been a director named in this Bill, while he was at the same time, and had been for years, a director of the Commercial Cable Company.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member's memory deceives him. I think I need not say that Lord Strathcona's reputation stands too high to be affected by anything the hon. Member has said. The history of this Bill is, shortly, this. For many years the Australian colonies have been complaining of the high rates and of the insufficient service they have received, and they, together with the Dominion of Canada, have been anxious for a further cable connection to be constructed between this country and Australia, via Canada, which should touch only on British soil, and should have all the safeguards which attach to that condition. That is no new idea; it has been the subject of resolutions in two separate colonial conferences. The object of His Majesty's Government has been to secure an all-British cable, which would safeguard our interests in time of war, and in time of peace facilitate British trade, which would come from a reduced tariff. The Eastern Telegraph Company and its allies had, since this proposal had taken practical shape, and since His Majesty's Government had expressed their willingness to co-operate with the colonies in laying this cable, offered terms which they never offered before. They had contended, earlier, that the traffic would
494
not bear any reduction of rates, that it did not pay at the present time, and that they could not afford to make the concessions which the colonies and correspondents in this country desired. I do not think it desirable that our cable communications should remain under the control of one company. It was only when competition had become almost a certainty that the Eastern Telegraph Company, whose subsidies had amounted to over a million sterling, offered concessions they had never contemplated before in order to avert that competition. Is it to be contended that, because we have helped that company so much, we must not help any other enterprise?
I have been asked whether, in agreeing to help to make this cable, we have taken the precautions we would take if we were dealing with a subsidised company as to Government messages and British employees. Of course, British employees would be employed by the Pacific Cable Board. Not being in the position of men running a purely commercial business, the representatives of the British colonies and of the British Government did not require to be tied down in the same way as a commercial company would. In the same way, too, as regards Government messages, it will probably be convenient that they should go at half rates, as they do under most of our cable agreements. But that matter is of much less consequence when the cable is owned by us, for the profits, instead of going to somebody else, as they do when we are dealing with a commercial company, will come back to us. It does not matter so much, therefore, whether we pay the full rates or half rates on Government messages. I have also been asked what payments have already been made. Roughly, they amount to £290,000, due to the contractors in accordance with the condition named in the contract. This is the first time when our great self-governing colonies have approached this country with a proposal for combined action in a great commercial undertaking. They have done it in the hope of promoting inter-British trade, of increasing inter-British intercourse, and I think we would have ill responded to the feeling which animated our countrymen if we had not met their advances in a friendly spirit. His Majesty's Government would

495
be loth at any time to refuse altogether to consider proposals of such a nature seriously put forward by our great colonial Governments. We hold that this country has an interest, if not as great as that of the colonies, at any rate a great interest, in promoting these trade communications and increasing these cable facilities. We hold that the construction of this cable will be of material advantage to us in time of war, and we ask the House to ratify the agreement we have made and to carry out the under taking which has already been ratified by every colonial Government concernedan undertaking which will form, I hope, a lasting and successful monument to the co-operation between the colonies and the mother country. I look upon it as one of the most fruitful and hopeful schemes that has come before us in recent times, and I warmly recommend it to the House.
MR. DILLON: A certain bitterness of tone seems to have been imported into the discussion by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which I do not propose to follow. But I wish to say a few words as to the observations which my hon. friend the Member for Cork has made as to the connection of Lord Strathcona with this cable. All that my hon. friend said was that Lord Strathcona was a director of the Commercial Cable Company, and that, under the circumstances, it would have been better if someone had been placed on the board who had not direct financial profits to be derived from the decisions of the board. What did the Secretary to the Treasury say when he came to justify this extraordinary new departure? That complaints had been made for many years by the colonies of the excessive cable rates. No doubt; but have there been no complaints in Great Britain and Ireland of excessive railway rates? The hon. gentleman further said the object of the Bill was to secure the advantages of British trade which would accrue from reduced cable rates. Might he not turn his attention to the great advantages which would accrue from reduced railway rates? All we contend for in our opposition to this Bill is some more satisfactory explanation of the grounds on which the Government justify this
496
departure from the well-established policy of the country. That policy has been that when under the sanction of the law private capital has been invested in enterprises the Government of the country should not use public money or sanction the use of rates by local authorities to compete with those private undertakings. It is on that ground that London has never been permitted to obtain its own water supply without reference to the water companies. On what logically defensible grounds can the Government justify the application to the industry of cable-laying of a totally different principle to that which is applied to private enterprises at home? Why was it last year when the Government proposed to compete with the Telephone Company the whole of the House of Commons and the country were turned upside down? Even the Minister, one of the ablest on the Treasury Bench, has, I believe, suffered severely in his position because he was inclined to give some effect to the principle of using public funds to compete against a monopoly. I am a strong supporter of municipal enterprise, but it is a new experience for me to hear the Tory party denouncing monopolies and advocating the principle that public funds may be legitimately used to compel those monopolies to reduce their rates. Are we to expect this new policy to be applied to Irish railways, shipping companies, and other matters in which home trade is interested? If the Government have made up their minds to sanction the use of public money for the purpose of freeing the public from so-called monopolies, it would be much better to act on the old maxim that charity begins at home. It is said that the Eastern Cable Company is a monopoly, but that is not so in the true sense of the word.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: They have a monopoly of landing rights in Egypt and other parts of the world.
MR. DILLON: Then surely the Government can give other companies equal rights. It is not a monopoly to so great an extent as that of the railway companies of this country. To justify such a proposal on the ground that they are beating down a monopoly is a most

497
unprecedented course for a Government to take. According to a letter written by Lord Tweeddale to the Colonial Office on 19th June, 1899, Mr. Leonard Courtney, when Secretary to the Treasury, said—
"It would be highly inexpedient to encourage on light grounds competition against a company in the position of the Eastern Telegraph Company, which has embarked much capital in existing lines."
If ever there was a man who was not a friend of monopolies, it was Mr. Leonard Courtney, and yet that is the view held by him.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I assure the hon. Member that we cannot construct a telegraph line to India or Egypt, because of the monopoly of the Eastern Telegraph Company.
MR. DILLON: Then let the hon. Member apply to the Government to abolish that monopoly. If the Government are so enthusiastically in favour of abolishing monopolies and reducing rates, why do they not start a steamship line in opposition to the P. and O. Company? What is the distinction between a steamship company and a cable company? In view of the necessity of manning the British Navy, there is much more to be said in favour of establishing a steamship service with the colonies, in order to give British trade the great advantage of cheap freights, than can be said for the present proposal. Even-argument in favour of establishing this Pacific Cable applies with even stronger
force to the setting up by the Government of steamship lines. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to a deputation, said—
"If any Government were mad enough, or the Cabinet were inclined to allow any Government to spend the money of the taxpayers in order to enter into competition for the purpose of destroying private industry, the position would be a dangerous one."
That is precisely what the Government are at now. Apparently the Government have gone "mad," because, according to the provisions of this Bill, the House of Commons is asked to sanction the very thing which the Colonial Secretary described as "madness." I maintain that the proposal now submitted to the House of Commons is entirely without precedent, and is revolutionary in its character, and I think we are entitled to demand that if such principles are to be admitted at all they should first be applied at home, so that we might obtain relief from the railway and other excessive rates which interfere so grievously with our trade.
MR. FIELDrose to continue the debate, when
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 459.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Chamberlain, J. Austin (Worc'r

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Charming, Francis Allston

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir. J (Manch'r

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chapman, Edward

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Charrington, Spencer

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Arrol, Sir William

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fisher, William Hayes

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gardner, Ernest

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Bignold, Arthur

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Bigwood, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Goschen, Hn. Geo. Joachim

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bull, William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Grant, Corrie

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs

Cavendish, V C. W (Derbyshire

Duke, Henry Edward

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Groves, James Grimble

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

MacIver, Daxid (Liverpool)

Round, James

Hambro, Charles Eric

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Rutherford, John

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Majendie, James A. H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mather, William

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Heaton, John Henniker

Mitchell, William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Helme, Norval Watson

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East V.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Smith, H C (N'rth'mb, Tyneside

Hogg, Lindsay

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Holland, Wm. Henry

Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w

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

Horniman, Frederick John

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Spear, John Ward

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Hoult, Joseph

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Strachey, Edward

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Parker, Gilbert

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tennant, Harold John

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Thornton, Percy M.

Keswick, William

Pierpoint, Robert

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Law, Andrew Bonar

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Lawson, John Grant

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Valentia, Viscount

Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

Plummer, Walter R.

Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Purvis, Robert

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pym, C. Guy

Wills, Sir Frederick

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm

Randles, John S.

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rensbaw, Charles Bine

Wood, Sir J. T. (Huddersfield),

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Macdona, John Dimming

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

NOES.

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

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, James (Rosc'mm'n, N.

Bell, Richard

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

O'Mara, James

Boyle, James

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Broadhurst, Henry

Leamy, Edmund

O'Shee, James John

Burns, John

Lundon, W.

Partington, Oswald

Caldwell, James

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Reddy, M.

Clancy, John Joseph

M'Fadden Edward

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Govern, T.

Redmond, Wm. (Clare)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Kenna, Reginald

Roche, John

Crean, Eugene

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

Cullinan, J.

Moss, Samuel

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Daly, James

Murnaghan, George

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Murphy, John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Delany, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower

Dillon, John

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n N.

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duffy, William J.

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

White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

Field, William

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Whiteley, George (Yorks, W. R.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gilhooly, James

O'Doherty, William

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O Brien.

Harwood, George

O'Dowd, John

Question put accordingly, "That the I Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes, 183;. Noes, 59. (Division List No. 460.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Arrol, Sir William

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

Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Plummer, Walter R.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Harwood, George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bell, Richard

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Heaton, John Henniker

Purvis, Robert

Bignold, Arthur

Helme, Norval Watson

Pym, C. Guy

Bigwood, James

Higginbottom, S. W.

Randles, John S.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hogg, Lindsay

Reid, James (Greenock)

Broadhurst, Henry

Holland, William Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Bull, William James

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Caldwell, James

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rigg, Richard

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoult, Joseph

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Houston, Robert Paterson

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Gayzer, Sir Charles William

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Round, James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rutherford, John

Chapman, Edward

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Charrington, Spencer

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Keswick, William

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Law, Andrew Bonar

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Cranborne, Viscount

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Leigh, Sir Joseph

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

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Spear, John Ward

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

Strachey, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Tennant, Harold John

Dyke. Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Thornton, Percy M.

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Calmont Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Killop, J. (Stirlingshire)

Valentia, Viscount

Fisher, William Hayes

Majendie, James A. H.

Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Mitchell, William

White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Whiteley, George (Yorks, W. R.

Gardner, Ernest

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Grant, Corrie

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Groves, James Grimble

Parkes, Ebenezer

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hambro, Charles Eric

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

Pierpoint, Robert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Hardy, L. (Kent. Ashford)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

NOES.

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

Crean, Eugene

Flynn, James Christopher

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cullinan, J.

Gilhooly, James

Boland, John

Daly, James

Hammond, John

Boyle, James

Delany, William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dillon, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Channing, Francis Allston

Doogan, P. C.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Clancy, John Joseph

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Cogan, Denis J.

Field, William

Leamy, Edmund

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lundon, W.

502

503

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Reddy, M.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Doherty, William

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

M'Fadden, Edward

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

M'Govern, T.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Roche, John

Murnaghan, George

O'Dowd, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Murphy, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Nannetti, Joseph P.

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Thompson, Dr E C Monagh'n, N

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

O'Malley, William

White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

O'Mara, James

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Capt. Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

O'Shee, James John

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEstated that there were some points on which he and those with whom he was acting were beaten in Committee, and they were quite prepared to accept the decisions of the Committee in most cases where they were beaten, provided that the same principle was observed in other directions when proposals were defeated in Committee. It would be very unfair, however, that they should not be allowed to re-open points, if all the points in which they succeeded in carrying the judgment of the Committee were to be again reviewed. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word 'class' to the word 'factories,' in line 14, inclusive."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,)said it was quite impossible for him to give the right hon. Baronet a general undertaking that the points on which he and those with whom he was associated succeeded in Committee would be accepted now by the House. There were one or two points with which he would be bound to ask the House to disagree.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not expect any general undertaking on the matter. He was glad to hear that there were only one or two points on which the House would be asked to disagree with the decisions of the Committee. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. TEXNANT, in moving the next Amendment, quoted from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories to show that the lady inspectors specially desired that the Secretary of State should have the power referred to.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 9, page 6, line 5, at end to insert, '(2) The Secretary of State shall, by special order, determine what is sufficient and suitable accommodation within the meaning of this section.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)
*SR CHARLES DILKEmoved an Amendment on Clause 12, in order to give greater safety to persons working; near machinery in motion. The Committee had substituted eighteen inches for twelve inches. He did not see that this was a necessary change, and, while he did not wish to divide the House, he begged to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed,—
"In page 7, line 24, to leave out the word 'eighteen,' and insert the word 'twelve.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'eighteen' stand part of the Bill.
*MR. RITCHIEsaid the right hon. Baronet placed him in an awkward

505
position. He refrained from taking positive action in regard to a matter with which he was not content on the understanding that the proposal he now made would be accepted. He really wished the right hon. Baronet would allow the House to decide. In the original Bill the word was "twelve," but it was altered to eighteen because the argument was largely used on both sides that there was a portion of the frames of the machines included in the twelve inches which ought not to be included. It was stated that if the word "eighteen" were inserted in the Bill the work could be done without increasing the danger of the people engaged at the machines. Of course, if the right hon. Baronet moved the Amendment he would vote for "eighteen."
*SIR CHARLES DTLKEsaid twelve was the space recommended by the factories inspector. He would not press the matter to a division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved the insertion of words in Clause 13 for the purpose of giving to young persons protection against accidents in certain circumstances where he considered they were not properly protected. He would not divide the House on this Amendment, but he called attention to the matter in order that they might know what they were doing.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 8, after the word 'child,' to insert the words 'or young person.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would not press the Amendment, which was, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HARWOODmoved an Amendment on Clause 13, modifying the provision which makes it illegal for any young person to clean under any portion of machinery in motion. He pointed out that machinery was in many instances so constructed that one part moved while another part did not.
506
Operatives were agreed that there would be a great deal of hardship if cleaning was not allowed under large portions of the machines which did not move, and in connection with which there was no danger whatever.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 14, after the word 'power,' to insert the words, 'provided that the Secretary of State may, by special order, except any part of the machinery in a textile factory or any place under such machinery from the provisions of this sub-section.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. RITCHIEsaid the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had only told the House what he proposed to do in regard to machinery which was not in motion. He had omitted to state that he proposed also to allow the cleaning of machinery in motion. Under the Bill there was no alteration of the law in regard to this point. The hon. Gentleman proposed to repeal what had been the law since 1895, or previous to that—he was not sure—and to allow the cleaning of moving machinery with the sanction of the Secretary of State. He was not desirous that the Secretary of State should be burdened with that responsibility. The Committee carefully considered this matter, and decided to retain the provision which the hon. Gentleman wished to repeal.
MR. HARWOOD: The law is broken.
*MR. RITCHIE: It is an undesirable thing that the law should be broken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid it was of importance that means of exit should be provided, but he thought the clause would be somewhat marred and an injustice would be done to owners if Sub-section 7 were retained in the Bill. If a man built a factory and spent money in making a large portion of it fire-proof to enable workpeople to get out of that special place where they were employed, he thought the occupier of that section of the factory should be equally as responsible as the owner in seeing that the means of exit were not barred by the

507
placing of things on the staircase, and that he should be equally responsible to the factory inspector in case they did not comply with the Act. This was an admirable Bill, but he feared that in many cases there would be injustice, and, if he might say so, anomalies and hardships, on various tenants who worked under its provisions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point, and that he would amend the clause so that the actual occupiers of fire-proof factories would be equally responsible with the owners.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (7) of Clause 14."—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. RITCHIEsaid it would be imposible to place on individual tenants a responsibility which must rest on the owner.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. TOMLINSONsaid a good deal of apprehension existed in regard to buildings not commenced before the commencement of the Act. It would be very unfair to put existing factories at the mercy of some of the bye-laws which might be adopted. Supposing the bye-laws insisted upon every factory providing an outside staircase for use in case of fire, in the case of some buildings it would be almost impossible to carry out this provision without buying the adjoining property. He thought that some opportunity should be given of the owner being heard against what might be arbitrary requirements.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 20, after the word 'workshop,' to insert the words 'the construction or rebuilding of which was not commenced before the commencement of this Act.'"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. RITCHIE: I am sure my hon. friend will admit that whether a fire takes
508
place in old or new buildings there ought to be some escape for the people inside those buildings. No doubt it would be a hardship if the local authorities were to make bye-laws involving great structural alterations in old buildings. There is, however, sufficient protection against action of this kind, because it is assumed that the local authority would be reasonable, and the Local Government Board, who have to confirm those bye-laws, would exercise some reasonable supervision over a matter of this kind. My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the local authorities are inclined to make bye-laws which would necessitate great structural alterations. Their bye-laws might provide in some cases for a moveable fire escape, which could easily be done. The one essential thing, however, is that in all factories there should be some means of escape.
*MR. TOMLINSONsaid that after these explanations he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not know whether it was possible to make the amendment he desired at this stage, or whether the Government would undertake to make an alteration in another place. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of expressing his views upon the question he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 17, after the word 'is,' to insert the words 'so constructed or.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. RITCHIE: I am not prepared to say whether there is anything in the particular point which the hon. Baronet has raised, but I will undertake to consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RENSHAWsaid his object in moving this alteration was that there had always seemed to him

509
to be an enormous number of very trivial returns of accidents which could not be of any use to the office or any benefit to statisticians. The present law was that if any person was away for five hours in any one of the three days succeeding an accident, that accident had to be reported. A representative of the Home Office stated that as many as 80,000 accidents, under the provisions of the Factory Acts and the Mines Regulation Acts, were reported in one year. He remembered that upon one occasion they wanted particulars in regard to a certain class of accidents, but they were told that the great number of accidents sent in made it almost impossible to classify them. With the view of inviting the right hon. Gentleman to state his views upon this matter, he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 2, to leave out from the word 'him,' to the word 'work,' in line 4, inclusive, in order to insert the words 'from being employed after the expiry of the three working days next after the occurrence of the accident.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. JOHN BURNS: said he hoped that the Home Secretary would adhere to the words of the Bill, because the present standard of accidents had been in operation now for many years, and both inspectors and medical officers had adapted themselves to it. The present standard was recognised to be a reasonable one, and a great compliment had been paid to that standard, because several Continental Governments had adopted it as a basis of calculation. In those days when they wanted a common standard it would be a great mistake to alter the practice and do away with the excellent work in statistical matters which the Home Office had shown itself so capable of doing.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the word "accident" did not cover explosions, however violent, where there was no actual damage or injury done to the persons employed. It often happened that there were serious acci-
510
dents occurred, such as the recent accident with a torpedo, in which nobody was hurt, and which were not reported in consequence. He thought the word "accident" ought to cover instances where explosions took place of a very dangerous nature, although no person was hurt.
*MR. RITCHIE: My hon. friend who moved this Amendment has referred to the clause which was dropped in Committee. I admitted at the time that the law with regard to these accidents was not satisfactory, and I stated before that I should be very glad to see—and I hope that it may be my privilege to deal with it—some much more uniform system adopted. It would be better if we had some more uniform system of reporting accidents. There are accidents which occur in mines and quarries as to which there is no standard at all, and I am told that the present law is such that not more than one accident in ten is reported. This seems to me to call for an amendment of the law generally, and I think if we dealt with it partly by the clause in the Bill we might hamper ourselves when we had an opportunity of dealing with the matter more comprehensively. I hope my hon. friend will be content with the assurance that the matter is not likely to be lost sight of. Although I agree that the Amendment is a reasonable one, I would ask him not to press it, but to take my assurance that we hope to be able to deal with the matter in a more comprehensive way.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid there was evidence that many accidents happened in coal mines which did not cause loss of life or limb. The workpeople felt that those accidents ought to be reported, because, although perhaps no mischief might arise in any given case, a similar accident on another occasion might cause loss of life.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid the object of the Amendment he desired to move was to prevent accidents being hushed up by employers, and to ensure that the onus should not rest entirely

511
on the occupiers. It was only reasonable that the person who employed labour should be the person to report injuries to workmen under his charge. It was absolutely necessary that he should give notice in order to prevent recurring accidents, because if notice of an accident was given it was to be hoped the inspector would have the cause thereof removed.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 6, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'and such notice shall in all cases be given by the immediate employer of the injured person.'"—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. RITCHIE: This is an Amendment which cannot possibly be accepted. Under the existing law it is the occupier of the factory or workshop who is required to send in notice, and in my opinion it is essential to the working of the Factory Acts that that should continue to be so. If we were to adopt the proposal of my hon. friend it would mean in many factories that the workman who employed other people below him to do certain work would be the person responsible for reporting—a workman would have to make the report. I think the occupier ought to be the responsible person, and if you insert any other person you will greatly injure the working of the Acts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that, if machinery was not kept in proper and effective order, injury might be caused to the people working it. It was therefore absolutely necessary that the responsibility for having effective machines should lie upon the employer of labour, and that he should see that the place in which the machine was kept was fitted for the purpose. He begged to move the second part of the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 26, after the Word pounds,' to insert as a new sub-clause, '(6) in case of any defective machinery or construc-
512
tion in any building brought about either by decay or want of proper skilled attention, the person responsible shall be the immediate employer, and not the owner or occupier.'"—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. RITCHIE: This is as bad as the other, if not worse. My hon. friend would now place on some subsidiary workman the responsibility for all the plant and machinery. That has only to be stated to show that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRdisclaimed any such object.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RENSHAWmoved to omit the word "noon" in order to insert "one o'clock in the afternoon." This Amendment raised probably the most important question to be decided in the course of that night's proceedings. The proceedings in the Grand Committee on the day when this clause was amended were such as to warrant the House in reconsidering the decision then arrived at. The Committee had been sitting on Mondays and Thursdays, but, in order to get the Bill through, it was suggested the Committee should meet on Tuesday, 26th July. This was done, but unfortunately two other Committees, in which members interested in trade questions were concerned, were meeting at the same time, and a considerable number of members were prevented from attending the Grand Committee on Trade. Only about one-half of the members of the Committee were present, and the decision he now asked the House to reverse was arrived at by twenty-one votes against thirteen. Only half the members were present when the matter was under consideration, and the Amendment which the House was now asked to reconsider was only carried by a third of the members of the Grand Committee. It was represented, in the course of the short discussion which took place, by the hon. Member for Bolton, that there was considerable unanimity of opinion between employers and employed in Lancashire on the

513
matter. But the petition he presented that day signed by 1,040 employers in Lancashire, representing an enormous number of spindles and looms, showed that that unanimity did not really exist. He would ask the House to consider whether in that matter it would be safe to take Lancashire as a guide for all the industries of the country, and whether it was right that a highly-prosperous trade carried on in one particular part of the country should be the criterion to be applied to all other trade and industries. Representations had been made to him and, he was sure, to many other hon. members showing how seriously particular trades would be affected by the Amendment which had been carried in the Grand Committee. He would refer particularly to the jute and flax trades. With reference to the jute trade, he had received a letter from one of the most important jute firms in Dundee—Messrs. Cox Brothers, Limited—of which the following was an extract—
"You are doubtless aware that India as well as the Continent has been for many years in keen competition with Dundee in the jute trade. With abundance of cheap labour the double shift system and the absence of time limits our competitors have been and still are extending their plant and increasing their trade all over the world. Moreover, this Amendment has at least in Scotland been sprung upon manufacturers so suddenly as to preclude opportunity for consideration or discussion, and in the absence of any definite movement by textile employees in favour of fewer hours. As large employers of labour, and having the common interest at heart, we must emphatically protest against this rash and superficially conceived Amendment. When India and the Continent legislate to bring hours of labour in textile factories parallel with ours, it will be quite time enough to consider further progress. When Britain was the workshop of the world such experiments were safe—conditions are now so modified that they may prove fatal."
It might be urged that, after all, the difference made by the Amendment was a difference only of one hour a week; but that meant fifty-two hours a year, or practically a working week taken off the time in which a great industry was carried on, or a reduction of 2 per cent. in the productive capacity of the country. What was the particular time in which it was proposed to carry out a great change of that kind? The country had been called upon to respond, and had responded gladly, to an addition of some-
514
thing like twenty-five millions of taxation. Was that a desirable time in which to introduce such a provision? He would also appeal to the Government on another ground. The Amendment was carried in the Grand Committee as recently as the 26th of July, and was not in the Bill as it was introduced and considered by the manufacturers throughout the length and breadth of the country. The manufacturers had had no notice of the change whatever. It had been sprung on them during the holiday season, and he ventured to say that it was not a matter which ought to have been sprung on the country. They could not tamper lightly with a great industrial occupation, and he would appeal to the House to make it perfectly clear that an alteration of that kind could only be carried at the instance of a responsible Government, and after full, ample, and due notice had been given to the people interested.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 15, line 19, to leave out the word; 'noon,' and insert the words 'one o'clock in the afternoon.'"—(Mr. Renshaw).
Question proposed, "That the word 'noon' stand part of the Bill."
MR. HARWOODsaid, as he had been responsible for the clause which had been inserted in the Grand Committee, he might be allowed to trouble the House with a few reasons as to why they should not go back on what the Committee had decided. As to the attendance at the Committee, he quite acknowledged that on that particular day, and on the vote on that particular Amendment, the number present was not quite equal to the average, although it was not very much lower. But he should like to remind the House, having gone into the matter, that the absent Members were about equally divided on the subject, and therefore he thought they should turn rather to the merits of the question than to the particular incident of the division. The hon. Member for Renfrew stated that he had said that there was practical unanimity. He did not remember having said anything of the kind. What he did say was that he was quite sure that if the change were effected it would soon be accepted

515
with unanimity, and that he maintained. With reference to the petition, he happened to be present while it was being signed, and he could give the House some idea as to the value to be attached to it. As to springing the Amendment on the country, he would ask the House to excuse him if he dealt with that at some length. The alteration would directly affect nearly a million and a half operatives, and a large number of very important trades, and he agreed that the House should not adopt it in any hasty way. But if the House opened its eyes properly it would see that the change was fair and reasonable and ought to be made. No representations had been made to him with reference to the jute trade, but many hon. Members knew that in Lancashire it was a leading question at the last general election, and that it was discussed in Yorkshire in 1895, and was a burning question ever since. As to the general principle, the proposal was to cease work at twelve o'clock instead of at one o'clock. That would reduce the hours of work by one in fifty-six and a half. In the textile trades the hours of work had remained the same since 1874, but while the hours had remained the same it was undoubted that the intensity of labour had increased enormously. He was quite within the mark when he stated that the speed of machines was now 20 per cent. greater, and that the machines were much larger and more numerous than in 1874; and considering the increase in speed, the increase in the size of the machines, and the increase in their number, he was well within the mark when he stated that the productiveness of labour had increased 40 per cent. while the hours remained the same.
It was said that the sanitary and other conditions had improved, but the House should remember that there were essential conditions in the cotton trade which no change could affect. The temperature in which the cotton trade was carried on was from 80 degrees to 100 degrees, and was it unreasonable that the same conditions should be applied to that trade as to other trades, especially as for a quarter of a century there had been no reduction in the hours of work? During that period the engineers had reduced
516
their hours from fifty-eight to fifty-three, and if the change proposed were made the factory hours would still be fifty-five and a half. He was speaking for women and children. In his own constituency 19,500 women and children would be affected by the change. Therefore, were they to say that men who could look after themselves should have a reduction of hours, but that helpless women and children should have no reduction?
What would be the effect on the trade? Would it be said that that trade alone could not afford any reduction whatever in the hours? Everyone knew that the working classes, when they were asked whether they would take out their share of the prosperity of an industry in higher wages or shorter hours, had invariably decided in favour of shorter hours. The employees in the cotton industry now asked in all humility for a reduction in the hours after a period of twenty-seven years, during which the strain and intensity of their work had greatly increased. There were particular reasons why a change was called for in the reduction of hours on Saturday. What was the position at present in many towns? The bulk of the men and boys worked in machine and engineering shops, while the women and girls worked in factories. Every machine and every engineering shop in Lancashire closed at 12 o'clock on Saturdays. The men insisted on that, and got it a long time ago. What was the effect on the home life? The men and boys returned at 12 o'clock, and the women and children at 1 o'clock. Could it not be easily understood what was happening to the Saturday dinner and to the home life on that particular day? That was a grievance which was felt every week. The movement to remove it started not from the top, but from the bottom, and it would go on, because it was a grievance which burned into the home life of the people every week. It should be remembered also that on Saturday in factories the period of employment between breakfast and stoppage was half an hour longer than on any other day of the week, and that four and a half hours, instead of four, were worked. Not only that, but the work was hardest on that day, as the cleaning had to be done, and consequently the women had to work hardest

517
in the factories on the very day on which their home work was hardest also.
As to the reduction of 2 per cent. in productive capacity, put as the hon. Member put it, it seemed to be that way, but it was not so at all. It was not giving one hour out of fifty-six and a half, it was giving the worst hour of the whole week, the hour in which the employees worked in the slackest way. The change proposed would not cause a reduction of 2 per cent., nor a reduction of 1 per cent., and he ventured to say that in twelve months there would be no reduction at all. What was the result of our experience in the past? The last reduction in 1874 was three and a half hours, the previous reduction to that was also three and a half hours, but the quality of the labour increased more than the quantity diminished, and he had statistics which showed that in two years time there was practically no reduction whatever. Speaking on behalf of the operatives, he said they were quite prepared to give up their share of their wages if there was going to be any loss. If there was to be a reduction of one-fifty-sixth, there would be a reduction of one-fifty-sixth in wages, and the operatives—90 per cent. of whom were paid by the piece—were quite prepared to give up any proportion of their wages which the reduction of hours might involve. At the same time they were quite sure that ultimately there would be no loss at all to them or to their employers. Therefore it was unreasonable to resist the change. It was said that factories could not work overtime; but the engineers would not work after twelve o'clock on Saturday. It was true that the factories did not work overtime, but the total time worked in factories was longer than the total time worked in the engineers' shops, even with overtime. The engineers so much valued stopping at 12 o'clock on Saturday that nothing would induce them to work overtime on that day. His own interest was entirely wrapped up in the trade but he was not so chicken-hearted as to listen to a Jeremiah. They were told of foreign competition, but foreign competition was of two kinds. There was the foreign competition of States which did not mean to receive our products at any price, and no alteration in the cost of production would make the slightest difference as to that. When he heard
518
melancholy statements about foreign competition in the cotton trade, he would say that where we had a free field our pre-eminence was as undoubted as ever it was. In India, and in all other countries where we could meet our competitors on equal terms, we were easily first. It was said that we now produced comparatively a small proportion of production, but positively we produced a great deal more than ever we did; and foreign competition had only taken from us certain countries which were determined to produce for themselves. It was absurd to suggest that a change of this kind would upset the commercial stability of the country. Might he appeal on another point? Parliament had taken under its care the textile trades. Why? Because Parliament said that it should look after those trades in order to protect the women and children. What was that protection worth if the result was that those trades were the only trades in which there had been no reduction of hours for a quarter of a century? Would not those trades very much question the advantage of parliamentary protection if they did not get what they certainly would have got had they not been a parliamentary trade? The question was a domestic question of the greatest importance. It was also a question of the physical condition of the people. It was not an easy thing for a Member to question in the House the physical pre-eminence of, his constituents, but everyone who knew the inhabitants of the cotton districts knew that they were physically inferior to the general population of the country. He believed that that was due to the strain put upon them and their forefathers, and he believed that the change now proposed would remove that strain on the day on which it was most intense, and give the people an opportunity of developing their physical condition. He believed it would also improve the supply of labour. In the cotton trade there was a great deficiency of boys. They all went into the engineering trade because the conditions were more favourable. He believed that the masters would benefit by having a larger supply of labour, and that that labour would be of a better quality. He begged the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to

519
associate his name with a change which would not do any harm whatever, and which would be an enormous boon to thousands.
*MR. JAMES KENYONsaid he desired to associate himself with the hon. Member for Bolton in his remarks. In the textile factories, three-fourths of the workers were women and young persons, and it was a very serious matter in the home life of those people that they should have the confusion which resulted from their not being able to be at home at the same hour as other members of their families on Saturdays. The hon. Member for Bolton mentioned the engineers, but there were also the building trades—stonemasons, bricklayers, and their labourers—who stopped work at twelve o'clock, and therefore the families of those men were just as much interested as the engineers. Surely the working people of the country, having regard to the pressure under which they had been working for the last few years, deserved that additional hour on Saturdays. He believed it would be most beneficial to their health, as it would give them an opportunity of getting a holiday. In winter they had only about two hours on Saturdays before it was dark, and the additional hour would therefore be of very considerable benefit to them. There had been very considerable talk as to whether the cotton trade, could afford it. He had taken great interest in that trade, and during the years 1899 and 1900 twenty-two mills were put up in South-east Lancashire, not old-fashioned mills, but enormous concerns, with a working capital of over three millions. He begged to submit to the House that expenditure of that kind certainly did not show that the cotton trade was a decaying industry. When the workpeople saw new mills being put up in different parts of the country, they naturally concluded that the trade was prosperous, and they petitioned for one hour additional on Saturday as their fair share of that prosperity. With reference to the petition that had been presented, he knew some of the people who had the getting up of it, and one or two of them did not work at all on Saturday. They stopped on Friday night. He might point to the result of
520
the Spinners' Combination, the chairman and vice-chairman of which were members of the House. Although adverse opinions were freely expressed by Jeremiahs at the time, ever since that great combination was formed, the shares, which had been issued at 20s., had been selling at 40s., and they were now about 36s. or 37s. He had pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for Bolton in the matter. He did not believe that the extra hour's holiday on Saturday would detrimentally affect the trade at all, but he believed it would be a boon and a blessing to the workpeople, and he thought the extra work which they would be able to do during the week would make up for any deficit which might take place.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that some derogatory remarks had been made with reference to the petition which he had presented that afternoon, but there was no doubt that it was signed by 1,040 firms, many of them having 2,000 spindles and others over 3,000 spindles. It was all very well for hon. Members to shower contempt on a petition of that kind, but it was signed by, perhaps, all the greatest firms, and the great majority of all the firms in Lancashire. That was a strong indication of what the manufacturers thought of the proposal. It was all very well to entirely ignore the manufacturers, but who were the best judges as to whether the large factories would or would not be able to withstand competition? The manufacturers were the generals of industry, and they stood between the workpeople and their being able to get their weekly wages or not. They had conducted their business so that they had been able to provide wages for their workpeople, and in many respects the manufacturers and the workpeople were bound together in bonds of friendship and bonds of material welfare. The matter affected those two sets of people, and did not affect to any great extent anyone else. A large number of the manufacturers said that they were afraid that if this automatic rule as to twelve o'clock on Saturdays was made, it would seriously affect their prosperity, and then the prosperity of the workpeople would also be affected. That was

521
the question they had to consider. The manufacturers risked their money, and directed their operations against foreign competitors, and it was on the successful direction of those operations that the wages of the operatives depended. It was a very serious thing to say that a certain set of operatives in a certain trade should stop at twelve o'clock instead of at one o'clock. If regulations of hours were to be made, they ought to be made, as far as possible, by common agreement between employer and employed, and not by law. What the manufacturers felt was that there ought to be some elasticity. If restrictions were put upon labour in prosperous times it might be very little felt; but what the manufacturers said was that they did not want any restrictions to which elasticity could not be applied, so that if times of great depression came, as no doubt they would, then the hours might be lengthened, not only in the interests of the workpeople themselves, but in the interests of the industrial supremacy of the country. With reference to the reduction of hours, it was far better that there should not be any reduction with regard to time, but that the number of hours of work of women and young persons should be limited to a certain number per week. Elasticity was wanted in every way in which it could be given. The great number of holidays now taken in the course of the year was not referred to. He believed it was a fact that operatives in Manchester in the textile trade took altogether something like two weeks in the course of the year. The hon. Member for Bolton spoke of foreign competition in a very jaunty way. He said that if the manufacturers were given a fair field they would be afraid of nothing. Given a fair field the English manufacturer was afraid of nothing; but was there a fair field? It was perfectly certain that in many countries there was not. America poured her goods into England, and last year only £7,000,000 of all kinds went back. Manufacturers who used to send thousands and thousands of pounds worth of goods to America did not now send sixpennyworth. The same applied to Germany. A large amount of English manufactured goods used to be sent to Germany, but the quantity
522
was now restricted, and many firms did not now export to that country at all. Yet those two countries were able to dump down their goods in England, while English manufacturers were not able to compete with them in their home markets. The same applied to Belgium, France, Austria, and Russia; and therefore he could not join in the view of the hon. Member for Bolton with regard to the future of English trade. There was a cloud coming over it, and it would require all the experience, pluck, and capital of the British manufacturer to meet the trouble which was lying in front. The House should not interfere with an important industry in the manner proposed, against the opinion and wishes, not only of the manufacturers of Lancashire, but of the manufacturers of the north of Ireland and Scotland as well. He thought it would have been far better and wiser to have left the matter entirely alone. It was true, as his hon. friend stated, that a great many Members who took a very strong interest in the matter were absent from the Grand Committee. One of the members of the Committee referred repeatedly to "we." That was the hon. Member for Berwickshire, and an Irish member asked whom "we" meant.
*MR. TENNANTsaid that on the occasion when the question was asked "we" meant his right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean, who was sitting next to him, and himself, and they were speaking at the moment for the textile trade of Yorkshire.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that, unfortunately, the power of "we" was felt with full force, and Members who thought differently were absent. It should also be remembered that the manufacturers read the Bill as it had been introduced, and that they had no notice of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton. He trusted, therefore, the Government would resist the change. It was unfair to manufacturers that they should have Amendments of this sort sprung upon them unexpectedly, and he trusted the House would treat that class with the consideration which every Member in his heart desired.
MR. TAYLORsaid he could not agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire that the decision of the Grand Committee had been come to without sufficient discussion or that the majority was not a considerable one, while an examination of the names of the members who were absent on that occasion would show that there were among them as many in favour of the change to noon as there were against. The question was certainly not new to any Member who contested a seat in Lancashire at the last election; in fact, it was almost a test question. The operatives in Lancashire and Yorkshire were practically unanimous in their support of the change, believing it would conduce greatly to their comfort and benefit. These people had as perfect a right to their recreation as had those Members of the House who had disappeared to go grouse shooting in Scotland, and this single hour added to their Saturday afternoon would be a very valuable addition. He admitted there would be a slight loss in production, but he did not think that should be set against the improvement which would follow in the social amenities of the working classes. The loss of production would, he thought, not be quite as much as 2 per cent., but the fact that the wages of the operatives, who were asking for this reduction, would be reduced pro tanto, seeing that they were almost all pieceworkers, proved the genuineness of the demand. He admitted that foreign competition was no bogey, but the question of whether or not we kept our textile trade did not depend on this last most laborious hour. More than a quarter of a century had passed since the last reduction of hours. Meanwhile other trades had had their hours reduced, and it was not to be supposed that the textile workers would be content to remain as they were. Foreign competition would be met not by long hours, but by better methods, more science, and greater enterprise. The hon. Member for Newton had said that this was a matter not for legislation, but for mutual agreement between employers and employed. If such an agreement were likely to be arrived at that would be very well, but the employers class feared any reduction of hours whatever. The only other method by which workpeople
524
could obtain a reduction was by means of a strike. It was difficult to believe that the employers could imagine that the result of a strike, even if they were successful, would be any gain to them during the next ten or twenty years, as compared with a peaceful settlement by legislation on the lines here proposed. He hoped the Home Secretary would allow the opinion of the House to be freely expressed, and that hon. Gentlemen on both sides would agree to give this boon to a large and deserving class.
*MR. RITCHIE: I do not imagine that any arguments either for or against this proposal are likely to alter the decision at which most Members have arrived as to the way in which they should vote on this question. I hope, therefore, it will not be necessary greatly to prolong the discussion on the Amendment, which, of course, is a very important one. There are a few considerations I wish to place before the House. I do not think anyone can complain at the House being asked to give a decision upon a question which came before the Grand Committee, and which was there decided against the views I then expressed. It is quite true the circumstances were somewhat peculiar. The day on which this decision was arrived at was not the usual day of meeting, and there were other Committees sitting, upon which many Members were specially engaged. It is not surprising, having regard to the importance attached to this question by those particularly interested—namely, the textile manufacturers, not of Lancashire and Yorkshire only, but throughout the country—that they should ask the House to revise the decision arrived at by the Committee. No doubt the cotton trade of Lancashire has of late been in a prosperous condition, and what may now be very lightly looked upon might be a much more serious matter if a condition of things arose such as that which existed some years ago when a great number of spindles were standing for want of work. Reference has been made to 2 per cent. being a somewhat insignificant figure. If it is true that this alteration would make a difference of 2 per cent.—and it is generally admitted it would be about that figure—it is not an insignificant amount at all, and I have

525
known times when, in manufacturing operations, 2 per cent. made all the difference between standing and going on. It is naturally, therefore, under certain conditions of trade, a serious consideration. It has been admitted by the representatives of the workmen that this change if carried into operation would mean something like £120,000 or £130,000 a year in the cotton industry alone. We, therefore, cannot be surprised that the manufacturers should desire the House to express an opinion on the question, bearing in mind, also, the fact that they had no reason to expect that this matter would arise in connection with this Bill. They naturally supposed if there was to be any rearrangement of hours in connection with factories and workshops it would have formed part of the original Bill. I think they are justified in saying the matter has taken them by surprise, so that they are now only just beginning to raise their voices and to show the hardship this change would inflict upon them. What is the argument used in favour of the change? Is it that the women and young persons are overworked on Saturday? Surely it cannot be contended that to keep open the factories until one o'clock is a hardship upon the workers? It cannot be contended that there is not a good half-holiday after work ceases? But it is not really con tended that this change is advocated altogether in the interests of women and young people. Certain pastimes are very popular in Lancashire and Yorkshire on Saturdays, and I think I am using a phrase which is in everybody's mouth when I say that there is really a "football stop."
MR. HARWOOD: Is not the manner in which the working classes use their leisure their own business?
*MR. RITCHIE: I do not in the least dispute that. I am simply saying that this has been called a "football stop," and that it is more from that point of view than of women and young persons being overworked that the alteration is advocated. But this is much more than a Lancashire and Yorkshire question. I can quite understand that both employers and employed in many of our other
526
manufacturing districts resent having to close their factories because this earlier closing is desired in Lancashire, and partially in Yorkshire. It must be remembered that it is rather a serious question for all piece-workers in textile factories throughout the country that they should, by enactment, be called on to earn an hour's wages less per week, simply because in certain districts this change is advocated. The matter must be regarded from the point of view, not of Lancashire only, but of its effect upon the whole textile industry of the country. It is stated that in Lancashire operatives and employers are practically agreed on this question. If that is so, why can they not come to an arrangement by which their factories could be closed an hour earlier? I am told that there are a considerable number of factories in Lancashire and Yorkshire which do so close, and I should have thought, seeing that this is a change keenly demanded in one particular portion of the country, and not asked for at all in others, that it was a matter much more for voluntary arrangement than for legislative enactment.
These are the views I placed before the Committee when the matter was there considered, and I do not know that I can add anything to them. I regard the decision at which the House is asked to arrive as a somewhat serious one in the interests of the trade of the country, and I earnestly trust, having regard to the large area which will come under the operation of the Act, that a demand coming from one section only of the manufacturing industry will not commend itself to the House as being one to be dealt with by legislative enactment. On these grounds I ask the House not to agree to the decision arrived at by the Committee, but to restore the Bill to its original condition.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHregretted the Home Secretary was not more sympathetically inclined towards the proposed change, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman hardly understood the real position. If this had been merely a question of the reduction of hours in the textile industry, although there were many arguments in favour of such a reduction, he should not have been obliged, as he

527
now was, to go against the right hon. Gentleman. This hour on Saturday, however, was a special question. It was not right to say that Lancashire was unanimous on the matter. This was a unanimous demand from the operatives, and he could not conceive how any operatives, not only in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but throughout the country, could do otherwise than support the alteration. The demand was really that the operatives might have the benefit of the Saturday half-holiday. He could not understand the Home Secretary taking such a serious view of the loss that would be caused by the reduction of this hour. In the textile trade Saturday was a broken day at best, and his own impression was that if this hour was conceded the production on Saturday would probably be even more than at present; he was certain it would if only the leaders of the operatives would help the manufacturers in the matter. A voluntary arrangement had been suggested, but those who made the suggestion apparently forgot that the main objection of the manufacturers who had signed the petition which had been presented was that a voluntary arrangement worked so unjustly between the manufacturers who paid attention to the wishes of their workpeople and those who were more harsh and careless in the treatment of their employees. He believed the opposition was to a great extent half-hearted. Whenever the operatives asked for a concession the manufacturers thought they ought to oppose it, even though they did not consider it an unreasonable or dangerous change; they usually appeared to be much
more militant than they really were. If the change were made he believed things would settle down, and in twelve months they would scarcely know there had been any alteration whatever. During the last few years much had been done to provide opportunities for the rest and recreation of the working classes, and the operatives should be enabled to take advantage of the opportunities which had been provided. In many cases this hour would make all the difference between a full Saturday afternoon and only half the afternoon; it would be a great boon to the working classes, and only a small concession on the part of the employers. Under those circumstances he had no hesitation in supporting this change in the hours of labour, because he thought it would be a great advantage to the working classes. This was a boon which the working classes had set their hearts upon, and he thought employers would be well advised not to oppose this proposal, even if they thought they would be successful in throwing it out. He had every reason to believe that this small concession by employers, which would be felt as a great boon to the working classes, would go far to stave off a much more serious question which was in the air—that of a reduction of hours all round of a very drastic nature. He had had the honour of presiding at a conference between employers and operatives, and the view he had just expressed was put forward very strongly.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 461.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cawley, Frederick

Elibank, Master of

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Channing, Francis Allston

Emmott, Alfred

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc. Stroud)

Clancy, John Joseph

Evans, Sir Erancis H. (Maidstone

Ambrose, Robert

Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cogan, Denis J.

Field, William

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Colville, John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Crean, Eugene

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bell, Richard

Crombie, John William

Flynn, James Christopher

Bignold, Arthur

Cullinan, J.

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Boland, John

Daly, James

Gardner, Ernest

Boyle, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Gilhooly, James

Broadhurst, Henry

Delany, William

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Burns, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

Caldwell, James

Dillon, John

Grant, Corrie

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Doogan, P. C.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Duffy, William J.

Groves, James Grimble

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Moss, Samuel

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Murnaghan, George

Rutherford, John

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sadler, Col. S. Alexander

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. Myles

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Norman, Henry

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Spear, John Ward

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Holland, William Henry

O'Doherty, William

Strachey, Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Sullivan, Donal

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

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

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Tennant, Harold John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Joyce, Michael

O'Malley, William

Thompson, Dr E C (Monaghan N

Lambton, Hon. Fred. Wm.

O'Mara, James

Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W.R.)

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Shee, James John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Leamy, Edmund

Partington, Oswald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Paulton, James Mellor

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley

White, Luke (Yorks. E.R.)

Lough, Thomas

Pemberton, John S. G.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Lundon, W.

Pierpoint, Robert

Whiteley, George (Yorks. W.R.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

M'Fadden, Edward

Randles, John S.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

M'Govern, T.

Reddy, M.

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Redmond, William (Clare)

Mather, William

Rickett, J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. James Kenyon and Mr. Harwood.

Mitchell, William

Rigg, Richard

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Roche, John

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hudson, George Biekersteth

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Arrol, Sir William

Duke, Henry Edward

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Keswick, William

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Law, Andrew Bonar

Balcarres, Lord

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Fisher, William Hayes

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Banbury, Frederick George

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bigwood, James

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby- (Line.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brassey, Albert

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bull, William James

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

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

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor'c

Hambro, Charles Eric

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Chapman, Edward

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Maconochie, A. W.

Charrington, Spencer

Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cog hill, Douglas Harry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harris, Frederick Leverton

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Majendie, James A. H.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Heaton, John Henniker

Milton, Viscount

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Henderson, Alexander

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Higginbottom, S. W.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hogg, Lindsay

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hoult, Joseph

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

Cust, Henry John C.

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

530

531

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Rentoul, James Alexander

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Mount, William Arthur

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Thornton, Percy M.

Nicholson, William Graham

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Tollemache, Henry James

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Round, James

Valentia, Viscount

Parker, Gilbert

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

Walker, Col. William Hall

Parkes, Ebenezer

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Penn, John

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Purvis, Robert

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

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

Pym, C. Guy

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

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Stirling- Maxwell, Sir John M.

MR. T. M. HEALYmoved, "That this House do now adjourn"; but Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that the motion was an abuse of the rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
MR. RENSHAWsaid that he desired to ascertain whether this change of hours was to apply to all the textile industries of the country, or only to those of Lancashire, and for that purpose he would move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 15, line 30, after the word 'whatever,' to insert the words, 'Provided that these hours shall apply to employment in a cotton spinning mill or cotton cloth factory only.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to speak on this point because it was one which was brought before the Committee at the express wish of the woollen and worsted trades of the West Riding of Yorkshire. They had been told that this matter had been sprung upon the Committee and upon the country, but he would remind the House that he moved an Amendment on behalf of the woollen and worsted trades of the West Riding of Yorkshire in the year 1895. Ample notice had been given of the Amendment, which was first placed upon the Paper, and it had been fully discussed by every Chamber of Commerce throughout Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Member for Renfrewshire had told the House that this matter was only discussed in regard to the cotton industry, but in saying that the hon. Member
532
could not have heard the admirable speech which had been just been delivered by the hon. Member for Manchester, who was himself one of the greatest cotton manufacturers in the world, and who spoke in the name of the textile industries generally. The matter had been discussed throughout the West Riding of Yorkshire, and although on several Chambers of Commerce a majority of the manufacturers were against the change, it was a majority of the kind which had been described by the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester. There were four leading manufacturers in Yorkshire strongly in favour of the change, and one Chamber of Commerce had carried a resolution unanimously in its favour. There was just as strong a feeling in Yorkshire as in Lancashire regarding this change in the law, and it would be a monstrous thing, after the House had so clearly shown its feeling on the subject, to attempt to dissociate Lancashire and Yorkshire.
*MR. RITCHIE: I think the House has given a very clear decision upon this matter, and I believe that in coming to this decision the House did not desire to confine itself to any one branch of the textile industry. As for the Government, we accept the decision as being applicable to the textile industry as a whole. (An IRISH MEMBER: Run away from your guns.] Under these circumstances, I appeal to my hon. friend not to press his Amendment. I know that he feels very strongly upon this point, especially in regard to textile manufacturers outside Lancashire, but having regard to the decision the House has just come to I do not think it would be wise to press this Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has shown great resignation, but not the sort of resignation we want.
MR. RENSHAW: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. TENNANTsaid he was encouraged to move his Amendment by the result of the division which had just taken place. He asked for a half holiday for the non-textile workers of the country, not beginning at twelve or even at one o'clock, but at two o'clock. What sort of an afternoon off was a holiday which only began at four o'clock? His hon. friend the Member for Bolton made an appeal on behalf of the textile workers because they were employed on Saturdays for a longer spell than usual, a spell of four and a half hours, but the workpeople he was now appealing for were compelled to work for a spell of five hours at a time every day. This was a question which deserved more sympathy than the question which they had just been discussing. The people he was pleading for had no unions, and were a lowly and inarticulate class, whereas those people whom they hat-just given longer holidays to were the very aristocracy of labour. They had spoken about high pressure of work being applied, but the class he was now pleading for wore a class to whom the highest pressure of all had been applied, namely, sweating. He was pleading for the dressmakers and others of that class who were employed for a great
number of hours at a time. He sincerely trusted that the House would agree to this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, line 12, to leave out from the word 'afternoon,' to the word 'afternoon,' in line 15, inclusive."—(Mr. Tennant.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. RITCHIE: This Amendment was rejected in Committee—
MR. TENNANT: Yes, by three votes.
*MR. RITCHIE: This Amendment stands in a totally different position to the Amendment which has just been accepted. With regard to the other Amendment, there has been a very strong agitation, but with regard to this proposal no such agitation has been raised.
MR. TENNANT: No, because they are not organised, and cannot express themselves.
*MR. RITCHIE: I am rather surprised to hear they are not in a position to express their views. We have no evidence that this demand is approved of by a large section of the population, and I hope the House will not accept this Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 127. (Division List No. 462.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Crossley, Sir Savile

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brassey, Albert

Cust, Henry John C.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bull, William James

Davenport, William Bromley-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Dick son, Charles Scott

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cawley, Frederick

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Arrol, Sir William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Duke, Henry Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Chapman, Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

Charrington, Spencer

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Har

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Banbury, Frederick George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Fisher, William Hayes

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Colston, Charles Edw. H Athole

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bignold, Arthur

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Bigwood, James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cranborne, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rentoul, James Alexander

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Lowther, Rt Hn J. W. (Cum, Pen

Ridley. Hn M. W. (Stalybridge)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Round, James

Goschen, Hon. George J.

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John dimming

Rutherford, John

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Groves, James Grimble

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Hambro, Charles Eric

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd.)

Majendie, James A. H.

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Milton, Viscount

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Mitchell, William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Moore, Wm. (Antrim, N.)

Smith, H. C (North'mb, T'neside

Heaton, John Henniker

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Henderson, Alexander

Morgan, David. J (Walthamstow

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

Higginbottom, S. W.

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Spear, John Ward

Hogg, Lindsay

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Hope, J. F. (Sh'effield, Brightsd.

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stirling-Max well, Sir John M.

Hoult, Joseph

Nicholson, William Graham

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Thornton, Percy M.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Parker, Gilbert

Tollemache, Henry James

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Pemberton, John S. G.

Valentia, Viscount

Keswick, William

Penn, John

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Walker, Col. William Hall

Law, Andrew Bonar

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Plummer, Walter R.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lawson, John Grant

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wills, Sir Frederick

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Purvis, Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Randles, John S.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Reid, James (Greenock)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm

Remnant, James Farquharson

Sir William Walrond and

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

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

Emmott, Alfred

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc. Stroud)

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne

Lough, Thomas

Ambrose, Robert

Field, William

Lundon, W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Bell, Richard

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Fadden, Edward

Boland, John

Gilhooly, James

M'Govern, T.

Boyle, James

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Burns, John

Grant, Corrie

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Caldwell, James

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mather, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Haldane, Richard Bunion

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Hammond, John

Moss, Samuel

Channing, Francis Allston

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Murnaghan, George

Clancy, John Joseph

Harms worth, R. Leicester

Murphy, John

Cogan, Denis J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Colville, John

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Crean, Eugene

Healy, Timothy Michael

Norman, Henry

Crombie, John William

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

Cullinan, J.

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Daly, James

Holland, William Henry

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Delany, William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Doherty, William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, David Brynm'r (Swans'a

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Dillon, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Doogan, P. C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Duffy, William J.

Leamy, Edmund

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Elibank, Master of

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

O'Malley, William

536

537

O'Mara, James

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

White, Luke (Yorks. E. R.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

O'Shee, James John

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Whiteley, George (Yorks. W. R.

Partington, Oswald

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Paulton, James Mellor

Strachey, Edward

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Reddy, M.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf d

Redmond, Wm. (Clare)

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Rigg, Richard

Trevetyan, Charles Philips

Mr. Tennant and Mr. Broadhurst.

Roche, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

MR. RENSHAWsaid the result of the Sub-section (4) as carried in Committee would be to prevent any woman or young person being employed outside the regular hours of a factory or workshop, so that if a woman had spent three or four hours in a workshop in the morning, and, having no other duties to discharge, was employed in selling goods in the shop at night, she would be contravening this sub-section. The provision would also have the extraordinary effect that if a young woman was employed in a workshop in the morning, and in the evening worked for another employer, the employer for whom she worked in the morning would be liable to the penalty for her employment at night. The clause as originally introduced was in precisely the same terms as the Amendment he now desired to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 17, to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 31, and insert the words, (4) 'If a woman or young person is employed by the occupier of a factory or workshop on the same day, both in the factory or workshop, and in a shop, then—

(a) the whole time during which that woman or young person is employed shall not exceed the number of hours permitted by this Act for her or his employment in the factory or workshop on that day; and

(b) if the woman or young person is employed in the shop, except during the period of employment fixed by the occupier, and specified in a notice affixed in the factory or workshop in pursuance of this Act, the occupier shall make the prescribed entry in the general register with regard to his or her employment."—(Mr. Renshaw.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid no reason had been given why the law should concern itself only with employment by the same employer. The Amend-
538
ment carried in Committee followed the precedent of the Shop Hours Act. He had taken advice on the point raised in Committee as to the possibility of the wrong employer being penalised, and the opinion of the competent lawyer to whom he referred the matter was that it would be comparatively easy to detect the illegality, as the clause was now governed by the period of employment, and that a magistrate would dismiss a charge if wrongly brought against the first employer.
*MR. RITCHIE: There are two points in the Amendment—the period of employment, and double employment. With regard to the period of employment, the difference in the Bill as it stood and as my hon. friend wishes to restore it, is that originally the number of hours which could be worked by the individual under two employers was limited to the number of hours which could be worked under the Factory Acts. That is to say, if the period under the Acts was ten hours, the period of employment under the two employers would be ten hours and no more. As to the question of one employer or two employers, the difficulty about the Amendment, as proposed by the right hon. Baronet, is that it would be absolutely impossible for any inspector to know whether an individual who was working beyond a certain hour for one employer had been working for some other employer in the earlier portion of the day.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: That objection applies to the Shop Hours Act.
*MR. RITCHIE: Yes, but the Factory Act does not deal with the Shop Hours Act. I think it is a mistake to insert anything which cannot possibly be administered under the Factory Acts.

539
These words would put upon the factory inspector a responsibility which he could not by any possibility discharge. Moreover, if a young person goes to a shopkeeper and asks for evening employment, how on earth is the shopkeeper to tell whether or not this young person has been in somebody else's employment earlier in the day?
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was anxious to save time, and if the right hon. Gentleman intimated his intention of amending the proposed Amendment by accepting an Amendment lower on the Paper, he would not trouble the House with a division.
*MR. RITCHIE: I intend to support my hon. friend in the whole of his Amendment. Under our original proposal, if a woman or young person had worked, say; for an hour or two in the, morning, she might work for a few hours in the evening in a shop, although the period of employment might extend beyond the hour at which she would have to leave if employed in a factory; but under the clause as it now stands, if she had worked for two or three hours in the morning, although she did not, work at all in the middle of the day, she would have to leave off her work at the time she would have had to do if still working in the factory. That is the whole difference. I think, on the whole, the proposal of our Bill is the light one.
*MR. TENNANTsaid he was very disappointed at the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought they had very good reason to complain of the course taken. The matter was thoroughly discussed in Committee, and the Amendment now embodied in the Bill was carried by twenty-one votes to eighteen.
*MR. RITCHIE: I was not at the Committee meeting when this decision was come to.
*MR. TENNANTsaid it was a very unfortunate circumstance, and the Committee stage was a mere waste of time if everything adopted in Committee for the betterment of labour were to be overridden by the majority in that House. [Ministerial cries of "No."]
540
That was what they were trying to do, but luckily the majority had hitherto been against such action. He resented very hotly the course the Home Secretary seemed inclined to take. If the law was amended as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire wished it, it would be impossible for the inspectors of factories to administer any law at all. He wanted these milliners and dressmakers all over London and Great Britain to be allowed to work at five or six o'clock in the morning and as late as eleven or twelve o'clock in the evening.
MR. RENSHAWsaid the effect of his Amendment would be to limit the number of hours, but not to fix the period between which those hours might be worked.
*MR. TENNANTcontended that any proposal which had the effect of allowing a girl to work at five o'clock in the morning and eleven o'clock in the evening of the same day was one which Parliament ought not to sanction. Surely at a time when they were trying to make some forward step it was absolutely wrong for this House to pass such legislation.
MR. COHENsaid that this Amendment was moved in Committee in the absence of the Home Secretary, but the next time he attended the Committee after it had been adopted his right hon. friend stated that when the Bill came to this House he should feel it his duty to oppose the decision which the Committee had arrived at, and the right hon. Gentleman had then stated that the effect of this Amendment was to very seriously alter the terms of the Bill as it was originally introduced. The question they had to decide was what attitude they should take up with regard to this Amendment. He ventured to urge that this Amendment, which was opposed by those who posed as the friends of the working classes, was one passed in the truest interest of the workers, and was so regarded by the workpeople themselves. Over and over again many a youth and young woman had dated their preferment in their respective vocations from the fact that they had been able to occupy themselves in work in the evening different to that which they were engaged in during an earlier part of the day.

541
These women were only too anxious to add to their earnings in the evening. He hoped the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Renfrewshire would be carried, for it would restore the Bill to the condition in which it was introduced in this House.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he trusted the House would support the Bill as amended in Committee by a substantial majority. This was a very difficult matter to follow. Supposing the Factory Act allowed a young person or a young woman to be employed ten hours per day, from eight o'clock to six. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire was carried, if ten hours were exceeded the employer had to notify. If this Amendment was carried a girl could go to work at eight o'clock in the morning and work till twelve o'clock at noon for one employer, and she could work from four o'clock in the afternoon till ten o'clock in the evening for another employer, and yet would not exceed the ten hours allowed by the Factory Act. Did hon. Members wish to see that state of things? That meant that the girl had to get up at seven o'clock to start at eight o'clock, and work till twelve o'clock at noon, and then she had four hours doing nothing. She then started at four o'clock in the afternoon and worked till ten o'clock in the evening, and would probably take an hour to get home. That meant that she was away from home from seven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night. That was a condition of things which no just employer of labour would like to see, and it was not permitted even by the Shop Hours Act, and the Factory and Workshop Acts ought not to allow such a state of things. If they were going to insist that a girl should not work more than ten hours for two employers, look at the amount of inspection and spying that would be necessary to prevent this It was a condition of things that was preposterous and ridiculous, and it would make Factory Act administration a bye-word to subject these girls to such inspection. In cases where the girls had to go two or three miles to get to their homes, they would not be able to get back during the afternoon interval between their two employments, and they would
542
probably hang about the streets three or four hours, probably to their physical and moral detriment, under conditions which they had no right to submit girls to. He appealed to the House to stand by the decision of the Committee.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLthought the right hon. Gentleman had not made out a very good case for restoring the Bill to its original condition. If the hours of labour were to be regulated at all it was reasonable that distinct limits should be imposed. The proposed alteration would have no practical effect, and he should support the Bill as it stood.
MR. BROADHURSTregretted the existence of a tendency to revise the findings of the Standing Committee. The Amendment was carried by a large majority after a full discussion of the subject. The Attorney General, who was then in charge, raised an objection to the Amendment, but, when it was carried against him, said, "Oh! never mind the work of this Committee; it is nothing; we will put the matter right when we get downstairs." That was not the sort of treatment Grand Committees expected. The Home Secretary had been incited to this unconstitutional proceeding by the extreme pressure of hon. Members behind him. Such action should not be supported, and he hoped the House would uphold the work of the Committee.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid the clause as it left the Grand Committee was looked upon by a majority of the Members as being impracticable and unworkable.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid they had been given to understand that a man could not serve two masters, but the Amendment of the hon. Member seemed to suggest that a woman might be sweated by two mistresses. The mover of the Amendment contended that by some means—which had not been made plain—the person to be subjected to the legal penalty was made clear in his Amendment, whereas it was not clear in the proposal of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. It appeared to him, however, that from the legal point of view there was just as

543
much difficulty in construing the Amendment now before the House. If a woman or young person was employed in a factory or shop, the whole time of employment must not exceed the number of hours permitted by the Act. But if, as a matter of fact, that number of hours was exceeded, who was to be punished?
*MR. RITCHIE: Surely the hon. Member must see that there is the greatest difference in the world between an offence being committed by one employer and it being divided between two employers.
MR. T. M. HEALY: My argument is that the offence is equally divided between two employers under the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
*MR. RITCHIE: No.
MR. T. M. HEALYsubmitted that that was the case. If the period of employment permitted was ten hours, and a young person worked for five and a half hours for each of two employers, who was to be punished? Where was the certainty of procedure in the Amendment of the hon. Member?
MR. RENSHAWsaid the words which limited the matter in the Amendment were in the first line—"If a woman or young person is employed by the occupier of a factory or workshop on the same day"—that was to say, by the same employer.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it might be clear to the hon. Member, but, reading the words hurriedly, it did not appear to him that the magistrates would be relieved of the difficulty urged against the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. But it was a very small matter, and it was not worth the while of the Government to engage in this contention. Was it credible that, after employer No. 1 had wasted the energies of the young person in the heat of the day, employer No. 2 would take her fagged and worn out instrument and pay her wages for the evening? The thing was absurd.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As the clause left the
544
Committee there was protection given not only to the woman or young person who worked under one employer in two separate capacities, but to the woman or young person who worked under two separate employers in different capacities. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to throw over the second class altogether, and to give no protection whatever to the woman or young person who serves two separate employers?
*MR. RITCHIE: I do not wish a young person to be unduly employed either by one employer or by two employers. My point is this in regard to the two employers: that it would be wholly impossible for the inspectors of the Home Office to see that the law was complied with. How on earth could an inspector, seeing a young person employed at a particular hour, know whether or not that person had been employed by somebody else earlier in the day? On the other hand, how is the shopkeeper who employs this young person in the evening to know whether or not she has been employed by another employer in the morning?
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: How does the Amendment help you?
*MR. RITCHIE: It is wholly a matter of machinery, and under the clause as it now stands it is wholly impracticable.
MR. HALDANEasked whether the Home Secretary would object to the insertion, after "if a woman or young person is employed," of the words "by the same employer."
*MR. RITCHIE: I have stated before that I do not attach much importance to this matter, and I do not think that the question is a large one. I am not the mover of this Amendment, but as it has been moved I feel bound to support it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 129; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 463.)

AYES.

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

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

O'Mara, James

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Shee, James John

Bell, Richard

Helme, Norval Watson

Partington, Oswald

Boland, John

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boyle, James

Holland, William Henry

Reddy, M.

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Burns, John

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

Rickett, J. Compton

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Rigg, Richard

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roche, John

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Leamy, Edmund

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cawley, Frederick

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Charrington, Spencer

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Clancy, John Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Cogan, Denis J.

Lundon, W.

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R (Northants)

Colville, John

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Strachey, Edward

Crean, Eugene

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal

Crombie, John William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cullinan, J.

M'Fadden, Edward

Thomas, J A (Gl'morg'n, Gower)

Daly, James

M'Govern, T.

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Delany, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomson, F. W. (Yorks., W.R.

Dillon, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Donelan, Capt. A.

Mather, William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Warner, Courtenay C. T.

Duffy, William J.

Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

Moss, Samuel

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Emmott, Alfred

Murnaghan, George

Whiteley, G. (Yorks., W. R.)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Field, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

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

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

O'Doherty, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Grant, Corrie

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Tennant.

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Dowd, John

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Chapman, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.

Anstruther, H. T.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gardner, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Arrol, Sir William

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Balcarres, Lord

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby- (Line.)

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

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cranborne, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Crossley, Sir Savile

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Balfour, K. R. (Christchurch)

Davenport, William Bromley

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Dickson, Charles Scott

Groves, James Grimble

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hambro, Charles Eric

Bignold, Arthur

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Bigwood, James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Duke, Henry Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Brassey, Albert

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Bull, William James

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Henderson, Alexander

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manch'r

Hogg, Lindsay

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehnrst

Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

546

547

Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Hoult, Joseph

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.

Howard, John (Kent, Favershm

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Mount, William Arthur

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Keswick, William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Spear, John Ward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Law, Andrew Bonar

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

Lawson, John Grant

Penn, John

Thornton, Percy M.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard

Tollemache, Henry James

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Plummer, Walter R.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Long, Rt. H. Walter (Bristol, S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Valentia, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pretyman, Ernest George

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Purvis, Robert

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Randles, John S.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Reid, James (Greenock)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Macdona, John Cumming

Rentoul, Junes Alexander

Wills, Sir Frederick

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Round, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Majendie, James A. H.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.

Milton, Viscount

Rutherford, John

Mitchell, William

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sadler, Col. Samuel A.

Words inserted.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the House ought to understand what it was doing in Clause 42. At present there was a complete exemption from, the Factory Acts of the assistants for gutting, salting, and packing fish, as regarded hours, and there was an exemption for four months in the year in regard to the fruit trade. He thought it was disgraceful on the part of the House of Commons to re-enact those exemptions, especially after the report which had been issued since the decision of the Committee. Without further discussing the question, he would move the omission of words to confine the exemption to full-grown women, and he confidently asked the House to reverse the decision of the Committee on this point.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 26, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'young persons and."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. TALBOTappealed to the Home Secretary to
548
accept the Amendment, in favour of which there was a very strong case, especially in regard to young persons employed in the jam trade. In practically all well-conducted factories the excessive hours were not required, so that the provision would really only apply to inferior factories conditions which other factories applied to themselves.
*SIR JOHN COLOMBon behalf of the fish trade, begged the Home Secretary not to accept the Amendment. The report to which the right hon. Baronet had referred might be the report of a very good inspector, but not of a practical person who knew anything about the matter. He strongly protested against the use of such words as "disgusted" in this connection, and he hoped the Home Secretary would not give way.
MR. BROADHURSTcontended that the report to which reference had been made presented a strong case for the Amendment, and he hoped it would be accepted.
*MR. RITCHIE: It would hardly be imagined from the remarks which have been made that an alteration of the law

549
in regard to the conditions under which this trade is carried on has been made by this clause, which, to a large extent remedies the state of things to which reference has been made. Under the law as it now stands, during certain periods of the year these operations are taken completely out of the scope of the Factories Acts, as regards both hours and sanitary conditions. It is because the conditions under which these people work are so insanitary at present that the remarks in the report of the inspector were made. We are now bringing these operations under the sanitary provisions of the Acts, so that the inspectors will be able to insist on all the operations in connection with both of these trades being carried on under proper sanitary conditions. It is quite true that as regards hours these trades are to a certain extent exempted from the Bill, but anybody who knows the conditions under which the fish have to be cured at once, in order to preserve a valuable article of food for the people, will recognise that it is imperative there should be no restriction of hours such as there would be if the operations were brought under the Factory Acts. By the alteration we propose to make, I think we shall remove all grounds of complaint.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should certainly support the Government.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise, not to enter into this discussion, but to take advantage of the question before the House to ask the Government how long they intend to go on to-night, and what their intentions are in regard to business. After this point which we are now discussing there are one or two other matters of secondary importance, and then we get to the question of overtime and of laundries, the latter being a very large and thorny subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will choose some favourable opportunity to state what he proposes shall be taken. The House might then take up the next Order, which is the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] His Majesty's Government have starred
550
that measure, and it is somewhat in decent for hon. Gentlemen opposite to receive my suggestion in this manner. That is an arrangement which I think would lead to the proper procedure of our business, and I do not think there would be any disposition on the part of my hon. friends to prolong unnecessarily the discussion of this Bill or the other. There has been a little inducement for opposition by the measure of success which we have attained to-night, but even that will not turn the heads of my hon. friends if some arrangement, such as I have suggested, is made.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that in regard to the Bill we are now discussing the two main points are, firstly, the question of overtime; and, secondly, the question of the laundries. I think we ought to deal with overtime before we part with this Bill to-night, and I also agree that it would be unreasonable to deal with the question of laundries, which I propose to defer until to-morrow. As regards the Children's Bill, it will be almost too late to ask the House to take up that measure to-night. I do not, however, think that the delay will imperil the future progress of the measure.
*SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When will it be proceeded with? [An HON. MEMBER: Not at all.]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know which of my hon. friends used that expression, but I shall put the Bill down for to-morrow.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that as there was a division of opinion as to whether it would be wise to divide the House he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would move his Amendment to Clause 46 in order to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman his view as to what the effect of this clause would be.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 28, line 3, to leave out Clause 46."(Sir Charles Dilke.)
*MR. RITCHIE: There may arise certain cases in which possibly something of this kind might happen, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it can only be put in force by a special rule laid before Parliament.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RENSHAWsaid that the Amendment he wished to move dealt with the overtime question. It was a very simple question, and for the purpose of making it clear he wished to point out that the omission of the word "two" and the insertion of "three" had reference to the number of days in one week in which they might work overtime in certain regulated trades scheduled in the Act of 1878. He thought that in the opinion of all those who had had representations made to them upon overtime the question of working a larger number of days in any particular week was more important than the total number of days which were permitted for overtime. The reason for that was because the overtime arrangement at present sanctioned was important, in consequence of the great pressure of orders at certain seasons of the year. That was pre-eminently so in certain trades.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 29, line 14, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsupported the Amendment. He said his colleague and himself had received a very large number of protests against the proposal of the Bill from the women workers in the silver-plating trade of Sheffield. They were trades which exactly corresponded to the description given by his hon. friend. They received a great pressure of orders about Christmas time, and there had been no demand whatever by the women workers in the silver-plating trade for this restriction upon their earning power. He knew that the Federated Trades Council of Sheffield had sent a petition in favour of the Bill as it stood, but they did not appear to
552
have called any meeting of the workers, and he had received no letter from them on the subject. He desired most strongly to support the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend.
*MR. TENNANTsaid this proposal was one which he was responsible for having carried in the Grand Committee on Trade. The House might like to hear a little story in connection with this matter. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division, in whose name the Amendment stood, wrote a letter to his Sheffield friends stating that there was no demand for this proposal, and that unless they received a demonstration of some kind they would know that there was no demand for it at all. The Trades Council passed a resolution declaring that overtime amongst the women in the silver-plating trade was unnecessary and was injurious to them physically and morally, and they further stated that to diminish the number of days would cause neither the employers nor the women workers any inconvenience. That council represented 20,000 members, which included every branch of the silver-plating trade. Anyone who had studied this question at all knew that for the last twenty years the inspectors had been clamouring, if not for total abolition, at least for a reduction of the number of hours which were possible for overtime. Everybody who knew anything about the subject must know that overtime was merely a question of arrangement. Many of the best manufacturers throughout the country had arrived at an arrangement by which they were able to do without overtime. The commercial supremacy of the country did not depend on working the amount of overtime represented by the difference between two or three days in the week, and he hoped the hon. Member would not succeed in obtaining a reversal of the decision of the Committee.
*MR. RITCHIE: I think it right to inform the House that since this Amendment was inserted in the Bill we have received at the Home Office very important representations in regard to this matter. We are told that in many places if the overtime is reduced

553
from three to two days a week it will seriously interfere with business. The annual value of the Amendment carried in the Committee amounts to a reduction from thirty to twenty-five days, and if the representations which have come to me from different districts are to be relied on—as I believe they are—I do not think such a reduction is worth the inconvenience and loss which will be inflicted on the trades concerned.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEregretted the right hon. Gentleman had come to such a decision, which he was afraid would have an evil effect on the Bill, as they would now have to divide upon all the overtime clauses. If there was one subject with regard to which the working classes were more unanimous than another it was the abolition of overtime. ["No."] During the whole of the time trades union congresses had existed—["Oh!"] Did hon. Members really believe that the trades unions did not represent the working classes? ["Yes."] Then he pitied them, because there had not been a single question of this kind for years past upon which a general opinion had been expressed in regard to which the trades unionists had not been shown to have spoken virtually the unanimous opinion of the working classes. The trades unions throughout the country objected to overtime in toto. In the Committee the total abolition of overtime was defeated by only one vote, and the milder Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire was carried by twenty-nine against thirteen. In every Factory Act up to the present the amount of overtime allowed had been reduced, but now it was proposed that on the present occasion it should not be touched. Every trade in the country had its "seasons," and almost every trade could manage to meet the extra demand at that time if it chose without overtime.
*COLONEL BLUNDELLthought the right hon. Baronet underrated the necessity for overtime, especially in the aerated water trade, in regard to which there was a very great over-demand in the summer and an under-demand in the winter. No doubt excessive overtime was a very bad thing,
554
but it was necessary in some special trades, and the Home Secretary would make a great mistake if he paid too much attention to the desire for its abolition.
MR. HALDANEthought this was a question on which the decision of the Grand Committee ought to carry much weight, as it was a matter of detail for experts. The Home Secretary was refusing to carry on the progressive curtailment of overtime, and permitting the decision of the Grand Committee to be overruled, simply because it was urged that two trades would materially suffer. Surely the aerated water and the biscuit trades were in no worse position than the average season trade? Both were articles which could to some extent be made in advance. ["No."] In any case, these detailed matters could be treated as special exceptions, so that the principle embodied in the clause would not be infringed. Rather than have these constant departures and yieldings, he for one would prefer to defer legislation in the direction of the amendment of the Factory Acts until Parliament was more in the mind to grapple with admitted evils.
MR. TAYLORsaid the House were really discussing two totally different questions—the increase of the days per week on which overtime could be worked, and the total number of days' overtime in the year. He suggested as a compromise that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire should be accepted if the Home Secretary would agree to keep the Bill as it came from the Grand Committee in regard to the total number of days overtime in the year.
MR. JOHN BURNSwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman desired this Bill to have that easy and safe passage through the House which many of them were anxious to give it. If the Home Secretary was continually going to accept Amendments from the hon. Member for Renfrewshire the House had better know, and then the closure could be applied and the Bill got through just as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire desired to see it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would disregard

555
the advice of the hon. Member and conduct his Bill with the same spirit of reasonableness which he displayed in Grand Committee. It was not likely that much support would be given to the Bill if the concessions were to be all on one side, and he rose to protest against "three" being substituted for "two." He wished to say a few words upon the question of overtime. In regard to mineral waters, he wanted to see that industry grow, but when the pressure came upon the mineral water industry, instead of working the women overtime, a well-organised mineral water manufacturer frequently employed double shifts and left the women and young persons out altogether. He should say that the making and the wearing of cotton goods was as much a season trade as the manufacture and the drinking of mineral waters. For something like seventy years the Lancashire textile trades had been able to do without overtime, and no one could say that this had been a disadvantage. Even the Government factories had found it not only advantageous but profitable to dispense with overtime altogether except in case of a national emergency. What had given England in recent years her present grip on the world-wide market? It was due to the fact that they had systematised their production and made regular what in other countries was casual and precarious. Through the regular employment of capital and labour without overtime they had been able to supply the world's market more regularly than any other nation. With regard to the manufacture of jam and biscuits and the preservation of fish and meat, the same conditions did not apply as applied ten or fifteen years ago. The introduction of the refrigerator had destroyed the necessity for overtime in those trades, and he did appeal to the Home Secretary not to allow the hon. Member for Renfrewshire to destroy the Bill and take the guts out of it. If this whittling down process went on the Bill would be useless. He was convinced that the nation which worked the most overtime was the nation which had most to fear in the world's competition. If they removed overtime altogether they cheapened the cost of production and improved the health of their workmen. During the last few
556
years in the engineering trade the efforts of employers had systematically tended to reduce overtime, and in that trade they had now a normal nine-hour day and in some cases eight and a half hours, and it was gradually coming down to eight hours. By abolishing overtime in the engineering trade they had lengthened the average life of the operative engineer from the age of forty-two years to fifty-four, and that had been accomplished in less than forty years. To add ten or twelve years to the working life of an engineer was a great thing to have done by the abolition of overtime. If this could be done with engineers, why not with unskilled workmen and, above all, in the case of unorganised women and children and young persons? He appealed to the Home Secretary not to adopt the policy put forward by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire.
MR. RENSHAWsaid his Amendment did not apply to young persons or children, and it only applied to women.
MR. T. M. HEALYthought the right hon. Gentleman should have further time to consider what Amendments he would move in Committee, for there were very few Amendments indeed in the name of the Home Secretary.
MR. BELLprotested against this Amendment, and said that for a great number of years he had advocated the abolition of all overtime. Probably because the hon. Member for Renfrewshire was interested in a trade in which the people worked longer hours he would like to see the hours increased in other trades. He accepted the Amendments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire with a great deal of suspicion, and he had noticed that the hon. Member on the debates upon various measures generally had the greatest number of Amendments on the Paper. As a representative of the trades unionists of the country, he protested against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member to increase the overtime.
MR. EMMOTTwas bitterly disappointed at the action of the Home Secretary on this question of overtime. The alteration was carried in the Grant

557
Committee by twenty-two against thirteen, and six of the twenty-two were Unionists. After such a decisive division it was rather hard that the House should be called upon to reverse that decision.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 138. (Division List No. 464.)

AYES.

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Ambrose, Robert

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

O'Malley, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

O'Mara, James

Harry, E. (Cork, S.

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shee, James John

Boland, John

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

Boyle, James

Holland, William Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Reddy, M.

Caldwell, James

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Joyce, Michael

Rigg, Richard

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Clancy, John Joseph

Leamy, Edmund

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cogan, Denis J.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crean, Eugene

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Crossley, Sir Savile

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Spencer, Rt Hn C R. (Northants)

Cullinan, J.

MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Daly, James

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

M'Fadden, Edward

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Govern, T.

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

Dillon, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Donelan, Captain A.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Tennant, Harold John

Doogan, P. C.

Mather, William

Thomas, J A Glamorgan, Gower

Duffy, William J.

Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport

Thompson, Dr E. C. (Monag'n N.

Elibank, Master of

Moss, Samuel

Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W. R.)

Emmott, Alfred

Murnaghan, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Field, William

Murphy, John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfold, Mid

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Doherty, William

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

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hammond, John

O'Dowd, John

Mr. John Burns and Mr. Bell.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Charrington, Spencer

Godson Sir Augustus Fredk.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Anstruther, H. T.

Colomb Sir John Charles Ready

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Arrol, Sir William

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Groves, James Grimble

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cranborne, Viscount

Hambro, Charles Eric

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

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hardy. Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Higginbottom, S. W.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Bigwood, Arthur

Duke, Henry Edward

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoult, Joseph

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Howard, John (Kent Faversh.

Bull, William James

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hozier, H on. James Henry Cecil

Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fisher, William Hayes

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

Gardner, Ernest

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Lawson, John Grant

Mount, William Arthur

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Leveson-Gower, Fredck. N. S.

Nicholson, William Graham

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Spear, John Ward

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Penn, John

Thornton, Percy M.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richd.

Tollemache, Henry James

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Macdona, John Cumming

Plummer, Walter R.

Valentia, Viscount

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Maconochie, A. W.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Walker, Col. William Hall

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Randles, John S.

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Reid, James (Greenock)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Majendie, James A. H.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wills, Sir Frederick

Milton, Viscount

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Round, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

More, Robt. Jas. (Shropshire)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)

Rutherford, John

Question put, "That the word 'three' I be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 465.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gore, Hn. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Anstruther, H. T.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morris Hon. Martin Henry F.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Arrol, Sir William

Groves, James Grimble

Mount, William Arthur

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. W.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Penn, John

Bignold, Arthur

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Br'ghtsde

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Houlds Worth, Sir Win. Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hoult, Joseph

Plummer, Walter R.

Bull, William James

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Randles, John S.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc r

Kenyon. Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Reid, James (Greenock)

Charrington, Spencer

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Law, Andrew Bonar

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant

Round, James

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Rutherford, John

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cranborne, Viscount

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Sadler, Col. Sameul Alexander

Crossley, Sir Savile

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Smith, H C (North'mb. T'neside

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Spear, John Ward

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Duke, Henry Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maconochie, A. W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Fielden, Edward Brockleburst

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tollemache, Henry James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Valentia, Viscount

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW.

Majendie, James A. H.

Vincent. Col-Sir CEH (Sheffield

Gardner, Ernest

Milton, Viscount

Walker, Col. William Hall

Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Wills, Sir Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Whiteley, H. (Asliton-u.-Lyne)

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

Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Dowd, John

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Malley, William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boyle, James

Holland, William Henry

O'Shee, James John

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Reddy, M.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Joyce. Michael

Redmond, William (Clare)

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rigg, Richard

Clancy, John Joseph

Leamy, Edmund

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cogan, Denis J.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crean, Eugene

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Cullinan, J.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Daly, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Delany, William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Fadden, Edward

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Dillon, John

M'Govern, T.

Tennant, Harold John

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Doogan, P. C.

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Duffy, William J.

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomson, F. W. (York. W.R.)

Elibank, Master of

Moss, Samuel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Emmott, Alfred

Murnaghan, George

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Field, William

Murphy, John

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.)

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Doherty, William

Mr. John Burns and Mr. Bell.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

Amendment proposed—
"In page 29, line 16, to leave out the word 'twenty five,' and insert the word 'thirty.'"—(Mr Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the clause."
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this was a case of the reversal of the opinion of the Committee upon a point of great importance, and he did not think the opposition ought to give way upon it, because the Government had not tried to meet them.
*MR. RITCHIE: I wish to remind the right hon. Baronet that these matters formed no part of the original Bill, and they wore never contemplated by me in preparing this Bill. I admit that there
562
were a vast number of questions which required reforming in the factory laws, and which have received my attention. I do not think that the right hon. Baronet is justified in saying that the Government have not tried to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will, however, make a further proposal. I propose to ask my hon. friend not to move his Amendment in the case of perishable articles, because, as a matter of fact, overtime in these trades is very rare, and I propose to allow this provision to stand as it is.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the right hon. Gentleman's statement showed how desirable it was that the Government should propound their own Amendments. The Home Secretary gave away his case when he said that the Government did not contemplate these matters in draw-

563
ing up the Bill as it now stood. Therefore it was the duty of the Government to put down their own Amendments. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, without a word of explanation, moved this Amendment in the style of an Attorney General. At this hour of the morning that was not the usual way to deal with a question of this kind. He suggested to the Government that they should now postpone this clause and proceed with some less contentious business.
*MR. RITCHIE: We cannot postpone this clause.
MR. T. M. HEALYthought they should insist upon the Government putting down their own Amendment, because they had been Renshawed enough for one night.
MR. JOHN BURNSsuggested that the right hon. Baronet should accept the offer of the Home Secretary and agree to the two Amendments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire on condition that they had no more from the hon. Member. If that was the view of the Home Secretary, there was no reason why the House should not reach Clause 80 before they adjourned, provided the hon. Member for Renfrewshire would pair with him and they both went home.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that, as far as be was concerned, he thought they ought to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, because, although it reversed the decision of the Committee on one point, it still showed that the tendency of the House was to reduce the number of hours.
MR. RENSHAWsaid he was willing to withdraw the other Amendments, but he wished it to be clearly understood that, in placing his Amendments on the Paper, he had had no consultation with the Government whatever.
Amendment agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
*MR. RITCHIE: The object of the next Amendments standing on the Paper in my name is to make it clear that all
564
underground bakehouses which are in existence at the time of the passing of the Bill may obtain a certificate of sanitary fitness if they can show themselves to be fit. Of course, after the date no new underground bakehouse will be allowed at all.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 101, page 54, line 19, to leave out 'A place underground,' and insert 'An underground bakehouse.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 101, page 54, line 20, to leave out 'on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six,' and insert' at the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)
MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that the Amendment, instead of reading "after the passing of this Act," should set forth some definite date in 1901 or 1902.
*MR. RITCHIEsaid that he had adopted the ordinary phraseology, and would prefer to adhere to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 101, page 54, line 22, at beginning, to insert 'Subject to the foregoing provision.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)
MR. TENNANTinquired the object of the Amendment.
*MR. RITCHIE: I have already stated the object of all three Amendments. The House will remember that I undertook when the clause was under consideration in the Grand Committee to make it perfectly clear that no underground bakehouse could be built after the passing of the Act, and the Amendments are simply to carry out that undertaking.
MR. JOHN BURNSasked whether the Amendments would impair what the Government had originally put in the Bill.
*MR. RITCHIE: Certainly not. It strengthens it very materially.
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. THORNTONexplained that the Amendments he had placed on the Paper would, if carried, allow the machinery and engines connected with steam bakeries to remain in their present position. Moreover, these Amendments would permit rooms below the surface being utilised for the purpose of storing eggs and milk, which are necessary adjuncts to baking and need a cool temperature for preservation. As for the engines which drive the steam bakeries, they would have to be removed in a vast majority of cases unless these Amendments were accepted. He had been asked to bring the matter up by the master bakers of London, and therefore he hoped the Mouse would accept this and the next Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In clause 101, page 54, line 26, after the word 'any' to insert the word 'baking.'"(Mr. Thornton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'baking' be there inserted."
*MR. RITCHIE: The object of the Amendment, which I think is a perfectly right one, is to make it clear that the term "baking room" includes any room in which any process incidental to baking is carried on—that is to say, there can be no underground apartment connected with baking, but there may be an engine room.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that was not what the hon. Member for Clapham wished. What he wanted was that eggs and other things necessary for the making of bread and confectionery should be allowed to be stored underground. It did seem to him (Mr. Burns) that if an underground bakehouse was not to be allowed, then surely the reason which had induced the Government to take that step applied also to the storage of milk and eggs in underground apartments. He advised the Home Secretary not to allow food to be stored in places in which he would not allow bread to be baked.
*MR. RITCHIE: No one can be keener in this matter of bakehouses than I am; but surely the hon. Gentleman is going a little too far when he says that eggs or
566
milk cannot be safely stored in an underground apartment. I should have thought that both eggs and milk were better if kept underground.
Amendment agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
MR. COHENmoved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Hackney, providing that where the occupier applied to a court of summary jurisdiction, under the Act, for an order concerning the expense, or apportionment of the expense, of so altering premises as to enable them to obtain a certificate of fitness, the court may either make such order. "or in the alternative may, at the request of the occupier, determine the lease." He explained that he bad himself placed an Amendment on the Paper, but that of his hon. and learned friend better carried out the object which he had in view.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 101, page 55, line 13, at end to insert 'or in the alternative the court may, at the request of the occupier, determine the lease.'"—(Mr. Cohen.)
Amendment agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
Further Proceedings on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till to-morrow.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS [SALARY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a salary not exceeding £1,000 a year to another of the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of the Light Railways Act, 1896.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Resolution to be reported this day.

  EAST INDIA LOAN (GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY DEBENTURES) BILL.
  Read a second time and committed for this day.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1899–1900.
Resolutions reported.
Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1900, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

(a) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure; by a total sum of £1,151,718 11s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £1,749,812 15s. 2d., as shown in column No. 2 of the said appended schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £598,094 4s.;

(b) That the total actual receipts in aid of the grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1899–1900.Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

…

Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

—

29,559

17

0

—

5,078

14

0

2

…

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

245,366

4

10

—

—

94,407

5

11

3

…

Medical Establishments and Services

—

29

16

11

—

1,745

7

6

4

…

Martial Law

2,601

17

8

—

—

40

17

2

5

…

Educational Services

—

5,001

12

6

—

395

7

3

6

…

Scientific Services

—

1,148

15

2

—

5,159

13

10

7

…

Royal Naval Reserves

42,243

13

1

—

95

3

3

8

…

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

Sec. 1

…

Personnel

64,419

0

2

—

—

240

9

11

Sec. 2

…

Materiel

809,951

11

11

—

—

126,088

17

4

Sec. 3

…

Contract Work

—

1,489,405

13

5

—

315

3

3

the sum of £265,185 6s. 6d., as shown in column No. 4 of the said appended schedule;
(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

1,793,043

11

2

Total Deficits

929,764

0

8

Net Surplus

£86,3,279

10

6

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations-in-Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
1."That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1899–1900. Voters.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

9

…

Naval Armaments

—

124,970

1

9

—

19,413

14

9

10

…

Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and A broad

—

40,256

2

7

—

10,865

15

8

11

…

Miscellaneous Effective Services

27,140

8

7

—

—

1,135

0

2

12

…

Admiralty Office

—

4,499

8

8

—

10

7

13

…

Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

—

808

7

5

—

17

3

6

14

…

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

—

10,130

5

1

—

118

17

10

15

…

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

—

1,7591

1

7

—

25

4

7

16

…

Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

42

16

0

—

—

42

0

0

Amount written off as irrecoverable

2,196

12

0

—

—

—

1,151,718

11

2

1,749,812

15

2

—

265,185

6

6

Net Surplus,

£598,094

4

0

Surplus,

£265,185

6

6

Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

£863,279

10

6

Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1900, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:

(a) That the gross expenditure for certain. Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £950,384 16s. 6d., as shown in column No. 1 of the schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £1,634,061 5s. 2d., as shown in column No. 2 of the said appended schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services Cell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £683,676 8s. 8d.:

(b) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate
570
of such receipts by a total sum of £262,092 2s. 3d., as shown in column No. 3 of the said appended schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £130,217 His. 104, as shown in column No. 4 of the said appended schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £131,874 5s. 5d.;

(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

1,437,483

17

3

Total Deficits

885,681

14

0

Net Surplus

£551,802

3

3

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the Estimated Appropriations-in-Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have

SCHEDULE.

No. of Vote

Army Services, 1899–1900. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

—

1,086,431

15

4

129,050

6

7

—

2

Medical Establishments: Pay, etc.

29,480

6

5

—

—

425

0

10

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc.

—

250,294

11

1

—

2,916

8

5

4

Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances.

—

4,661

5

5

3

0

0

—

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

—

10,664

15

2

—

736

15

8

6

Transport and Remounts

110,470

9

5

—

—

38,237

8

3

7

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

491,877

10

11

—

—

58,983

5

11

8

Clothing Establishments and Services

88,006

0

11

—

58,404

3

6

—

9

Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

201,370

16

4

—

—

770

3

2

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services

—

224,270

4

7

51,015

13

1

—

11

Establishments for Military Education

1,411

12

3

—

—

3,729

11

7

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

23,058

8

5

—

—

24,197

15

10

13

War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

3,308

10

9

—

—

130

1

0

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc

—

54,553

3

6

20,962

4

6

—

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, etc

—

3,184

10

1

2,656

14

7

—

16

Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

643

0

8

—

—

91

6

2

Balances irrecoverable

757

18

5

—

—

—

950,384

16

6

1,634,061

5

2

262,092

2

3

130,217

16

10

Net Surplus,

£683,676

8

8

Net Deficit,

£131,874

5

5

Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

£551,802

3

3

also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2."That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
MR. DILLONsaid these resolutions were discussed at some length on Thursday last, and having asserted their right to discuss them, although there were several other points which he should like to raise, he would make an urgent appeal to his hon. friends not to insist upon their rights to discuss these resolutions further. They had assorted their right of discussion in this matter, and in view of the conciliatory action of the Home Secretary he would appeal to his hon. friends to allow these resolutions on Report to pass.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1899–1900.

  WAYS AND MEANS [8TH AUGUST].
  Resolution reported—
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, the sum of £86,756,285 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Bill ordered to be brought in by The Chairman of Ways and Means. Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr Austen Chamberlain.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and two, and to appropriate the Supplies grantee in this Session of Parliament."
  Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. PARKER SMITH[Mr. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick in the Chair.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would not offer any opposition to this Bill. The principle of excluding tenants had gone
  574
  far enough, and he had the gravest doubts as to the wisdom of the measure. He had intended to put down some Amendments, but in view of the circumstances of the case he would not do so.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not propose to move any Amendments which stand in my name.
  Bill reported, without amendments; read the third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  MARRIAGES LEGALISATION BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land, near the National Gallery in London, and for other purposes connected therewith."

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
A Clause (Limitation of costs)—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till to-morrow.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [EXPENSES],
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred in relation to Criminal Lunatics under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Lunatics in Ireland.—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (APPEALS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. PARKER SMITH[Mr. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  An Amendment made.
  MR. T. M. HEALYunderstood there was a separate customs house in the Isle of Man, and he asked what was the position of the island with regard to the coal tax and the sugar duty.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the position of the Isle of Man with regard to the coal duty was similar to that of Ireland. The inhabitants of the Isle of Man would not pay the coal duty, but the Budget Bill recently passed gave the Treasury power to limit the exportation of coal from the Isle of Man, so as to protect the revenue. It was not pro-
  576
  posed to impose the sugar duty. The Court of Tynwald had imposed duties which were dealt with in the Bill, and the Bill was necessary to confirm the action of the Tynwald Court.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether any Papers on the matter would be laid on the Table, as Members for Ireland were interested in the question of a separate customs house.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid no Papers had been laid and there were none to lay. The resolution of the Tynwald Court was a very simple one, merely continuing the duties and customs imposed last year.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. POWERsaid there was a great deal of difference of opinion upon this question and he hoped the measure would not be pressed at this late hour of the evening.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The object of this Bill is simply to legalise certain matters which ought to have been reserved for the Royal Assent.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he hoped that his hon. friend would not persevere with his opposition to this Bill.
  MR. POWERsaid that, in deference to the view which had been expressed by the right and learned Member for Waterford, he would withdraw his objection.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 22nd day of July last, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Three of the clock, a.m.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND STREET WIDENINGS) BILL.
    DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
      SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
        LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
        Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BELFAST AND XORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
      WALLASEY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
      Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
      EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
        MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
        Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL [H.L.]
      BRISTOL CORPORATION (DOCKS AND RAILWAYS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

      PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
      Brought from the Commons.
      Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 192.)

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT.
    Forty-third Annual Report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland.

    Report of the Board of Education, 1900–1901.

    1. Vol. I. The Report.

    2. Vol. II. Appendix.

    3. Vol. III. Appendix.

    QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY.
    Annual Report of the President for the Session 1900–1901.
    LUNACY (IRELAND).
    Fiftieth Report, with Appendices, of the Inspectors of Lunatics for the year ended 31st December, 1900.
    BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
    Sixty-third Annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England (1900).
    POST OFFICE.
    Forty-seventh Report of the Postmaster General.
    Forty-fifth Report of the Commissioners of Customs, for the year ended 31st March, 1901.
    Forty-fourth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, for the year ended 31st March, 1901.
    GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
    Report of the Principal Chemist, Government Laboratory, upon the work of the Laboratory, for the year ended 31st March, 1901; with appendices.

    MINES AND QUARRIES.
    General Report and Statistics for 1900: Part II. Labour. General report and statistics relating to persons

    399
    employed, and accidents at, mines and quarries in the United Kingdom; and to the enforcement of the Mines and Quarries Acts.

    INDIA (RAILWAYS).
    Administration Report on the railways in India, for the year 1900.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
    Order in Council of 8th August, 1901, entitled the East Africa (Lands) Order in Council, 1901.

    FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT, 1881, AND FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
    Order in Council of 8th August, 1901, applying the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to certain South African Colonies and Protectorates.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC. CONTINUANCE BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day has for its object the continuance of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, the relative Scottish Act, and the Tithe Rent-charge Act, which was passed in 1899. The real point involved in this Bill is the propriety of renewing these Acts for a further limited period. The two Acts passed in 1896 were limited to a period of five years, but it was not then supposed, and there was not the slightest suggestion made, that the policy involved in those Acts should, after a period of five years had elapsed, be altogether dropped. The period of five years was fixed in the hope that the Royal Commission which was then appointed to consider the subject of local taxation might be able to report during that time, and also in order that a comprehensive policy on the whole subject
    400
    of local taxation might be fully considered. I see that some complaints have been made as to the length of time over which the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be chairman, extended its deliberations. I am sorry that disappointment has been caused in the matter, but I venture to say that, having regard to the intricacy of the questions referred to that Commission, to the great mass of detail involved in the due consideration of them, and to the composition of the Commission, it is not at all surprising that a period of five years elapsed between the issue of the Commission and its Report. The Commission was composed of fifteen gentlemen, of every one of whom it may be truly said that he had his time already very largely taken up. Many members of the Commission were salaried to perform other duties, which must, in the nature of things, have the first call upon their time; there was, in fact, hardly a single member who was not in the position of being paid to discharge other duties which made very great calls upon his time, and to which he was obliged to give precedence over the work of the Commission. But I can assure the House that no undue delay took place, and that we did our very best to expedite the preparation of the Report-Now, my Lords, so far as the majority of the Commissioners are concerned, we spoke with no uncertain voice as to the desirability of continuing the Rating Act. I will read three or four lines from the Majority Report—
    "Under existing circumstances, therefore, we see no alternative but for the present to provide for the deficiency arising from the classification of agricultural land in the manner proposed, as to the equity and propriety of which we are practically unanimous, by means of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament.'
    It is for the purpose of carrying into effect the continuance of the Acts, as recommended by the Commission, that this Bill has been introduced. The unanimity of the Commissioners on this point goes further. Although not the whole of the Commission are in favour of the principle of the Agricultural Rates Act exactly as it stands, almost every member is agreed that the half-rating of agricultural land, not for a time, but permanently, is a thing which is fair and

    401
    right so far as it affects the agricultural occupier. The whole matter is undoubtedly one around which a great deal of controversy has raged. There has been an immense amount of party feeling invoked, and if I desired to make a controversial statement to-night, which I do not desire to do, I should say that there had been in my opinion an amount of misrepresentation—almost malicious misrepresentation—in regard to this subject which exceeds any I have previously experienced. But, my Lords, I prefer to make a simple statement of the case as it appears to me in favour of the policy which is involved in this Bill.
    I submit that the case for the Bill is, on its merits, absolutely overwhelming. I suppose everyone now agrees that the test of the fairness of any method of raising money for public purposes, whether by rating or by taxation, ought to be based mainly upon two considerations (1) the ability of the person who is charged to pay, and (2) the benefit which he receives from the objects for which he is asked to pay. There are two very distinct questions involved in this matter. There is, first, the question between owners of property which is now liable to rates, and those who enjoy property which is, generally speaking, not rated at all; and there is also the question between owners of rateable property inter se. I do not say it is so, but even if you start by assuming that it is fair that all the revenue now raised for local purposes should be raised exclusively from the occupiers of real property, then there comes the question between those occupiers whether the test which the law at present enacts as to their ability to pay is in itself a fair test. About this I venture to say there will be no controversy; as originally devised, the system of rating in England was intended to cast the burden on all classes of property. The theory which underlay the well-known Act of Elizabeth, upon which the whole system of local rating was founded, seems to have been that the rates were an object towards which each member of the community should contribute according to his means. Attempts were made from time to time to give effect to that Act, but from various circumstances, which I cannot
    402
    on this occasion go into in detail, but which will be found fully stated in the first Report of the Commission, it became the custom only to levy the rates in respect of real or, as I shall call it, immovable property in a parish; but that custom never had any sanction from Parliament nor from the law courts. It was, however, found impossible in practice to carry out the law, and in 1840 an Act entitled the Poor Rate Exemption Act was passed, in the preamble of which certain words from the Act of Elizabeth were cited, and the enacting clause of which contained the following sentence—
    "It shall not be lawful for the overseers of any parish, township, or village to tax any inhabitant thereof in respect of his ability derived from the profits of stock in trade or any other property for and towards the relief of the poor."
    The effect of this Act was to relieve from liability to local rates all property other than the real or immovable property situated in each parish. When first passed this Act was only to remain in force for one year, but it got into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and there it has remained ever since. I think few people will dispute that the effect of this has been to cast a burden which is unfair in proportion to what it really ought to bear on immovable property; at any rate, I think I am safe in saying that it does not lie with those who were relieved, or the successors of those who were relieved in 1840, to complain of any such measure as the one now before the House.
    Let us go a step further. If it is assumed—and I think it will be generally agreed—that the ability of the individual to pay is one of the main foundations for establishing the justice of any tax. I think that the present method of testing the ability of each ratepayer to pay is almost ridiculous. It falls with exceptional severity on two classes—the occupier of agricultural land and the owner of tithe rent-charge not separated from the benefice. The farmer has the misfortune to use in the course of his business a larger relative amount of real property than any other class of ratepayer, and if he is rated upon the full value of his holding he certainly pays upon a test of his ability which is entirely

    403
    fallacious. I need not go into figures to prove this to your Lordships. The injustice on the clerical tithe-owner is as great, or perhaps even greater, as that on the occupier of agricultural land. The value of the property of the clerical tithe-owner is very easily ascertained, and it is valued, if I may use the expression, up to the hilt, to an extent which is not the case with any other class of property. Compare his position with that of a solicitor or a doctor, and you will find that the clergyman pays all the rates which the solicitor or the doctor would pay on the value of his residence, he pays all the Imperial taxes which the solicitor or the doctor would pay, and in addition he pays for purely local purposes an income tax of 2s. or 3s. in the £ on every pound of his income. Even if he is a clergyman of the Established Church, which some people would like to disestablish, he is, I venture to think, entitled to justice, and but for the Act passed in 1899, which placed him in the same position as the occupier of agricultural land, he would be, in my humble opinion, getting a very scant measure of justice indeed. That really is the case, on its merits, for the Bill, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time.
    Before I sit down I should like to glance at one or two of the objections which are frequently urged against the policy involved in the Bill. One of the commonest objections is that the Agricultural Rates Act gives the least relief to the land which is least able to bear the burden of rates. To a certain extent this is true; but it is true to a much smaller extent than is admitted by those who urge the argument. It usually happens that the rate in the pound required to meet the local burdens in the least prosperous counties is, partly owing to the low valuation, greater than in those counties where the land is more productive; in other words, the rural rates in the £ in the richer agricultural counties are much smaller than in the poorer ones. As a rule in the richer counties the rates do not amount to more than one half of the rates actually levied in the poorer parts of some of the eastern counties of England, and of some of the Welsh counties. If, therefore, the rates
    404
    upon land which is valued at 10s. per acre amount to 4s. in the £, and those upon land valued at 20s. per acre only come to 2s. in the £, it is obvious that the relief afforded by the Agricultural Rates Act is a shilling per acre in each case; it is improbable that the objection with which I am dealing can really be substantiated to anything like the extent which is sometimes supposed. There is another fallacy which is sometimes urged against this Act. It is said—and this argument appears in the report of two of my colleagues on the Local Taxation Commission (Sir Edward Hamilton, and Sir George Murray)—that the amount of the grants in certain counties and unions is unfair as compared with the population. That is, if I may venture to say so with all respect to the distinguished gentlemen who signed the Report, a statistical fallacy. No proper test of the equity of these grants can be got by taking the population, because the method of distribution has nothing to do with the inhabitants generally. The purpose of the Act was to redress the inequality which clearly existed between the agricultural and non-agricultural ratepayer, and to draw such a conclusion or make such a comparison as I have indicated is obviously erroneous. The case of Old ham and Rutland has been frequently quoted, but the county borough of Oldham contains an infinitesimal quantity of agricultural land. Therefore, if you compare the amount which the county of Rutland gets, and the population of that county with the amount which Oldham gets and the population of that borough, you can, of course, make out a certain case against the Act, but one which proceeds upon an entirely fallacious basis.
    Then it is urged that there is an injustice between town and country, and this is attempted to be proved by comparing the gross amount of rates levied in town and country respectively. The average country rate is said to be 2s. 3d. in the £, and the average rate in the towns and cities to be 6s., 7s., or 8s. in the £. But there are two fallacies involved in that comparison. The first is taking the average rate. It is no consolation to the ratepayer in a poor agricultural district, paying 4s. in the £,

    405
    and there are such cases, to be told that the average agricultural rate is only 2s. 3d. in the £. Then again, the rates levied in the towns and cities include a great many services which are rendered by the municipality to the inhabitants—services which are not and cannot be rendered in agricultural districts. Several towns and cities were referred to in the debate in another place. I will only take one of them—Sheffield. The rates in Sheffield are 7s. 10d. in the £, but only 1s. 6½d. of that sum is raised by the guardians, while no less than 4s. is raised for sanitary purposes, and other beneficial services. What is true of Sheffield is true of the county boroughs generally. Of the rural rate of 2s. 7d. or 2s. 8d. in the £, which I believe to be nearer the truth than the average of 2s. 3d. referred to, at least 1s. 9d. is raised to meet charges for poor relief, asylums, main roads, and police. Therefore, to make a comparison between the town and country rates it is necessary to analyse the gross amounts, and to eliminate in each case those rates which are not applied to the onerous services. The same fallacy was stated in another form by no less distinguished a person than Sir Henry Fowler. I should be the last person to accuse Sir Henry Fowler of intentionally misrepresenting any case which he puts forward—I know him to be absolutely incapable of doing such a thing—but the figures which he quoted involve in another form precisely the same fallacy which I think I have exposed. He said that the agricultural ratepayer paid 2½ millions on a rateable value of 24 millions; while the other ratepayers in the country paid 37½ millions on a rateable value of 151 millions. But in the second case there are included heavy charges for beneficial expenditure, such as streets, sewerage, and lighting. Out of the 27½ millions said by Sir Henry Fowler to be paid by the urban ratepayer no less than £10,000,000 were for these services alone, and there is also expenditure on such matters as libraries, parks, baths, and removal of refuse, which must be subtracted from the total, but the precise amount of the sums spent on these things is not easily ascertainable. I hope that the period for which these Acts are now to be extended will be long enough
    406
    to enable a comprehensive reform of local taxation to be undertaken. But I know well—perhaps I may say, without conceit, that few people know better, after the work I have been engaged in during the last five years—that the task will be by no means an easy one. The questions involved are full of debatable points; but it is most desirable in the public interest that such a reform should be undertaken, and I only wish that it were possible to approach it with less manifestation of party spirit than is displayed in these matters. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
    EARL SPENCER: My Lords, it is my duty to follow the noble Lord, but I shall be brief. I congratulate my noble friend on the able manner in which, he has presided over one of the most important Commissions that has ever sat, on one of the most difficult subjects which it is possible to bring forward, and I think the country owes him a debt of gratitude for the ability and assiduity which he has displayed. I will explain shortly the grounds on which we on this side of the House are opposed to the Bill. We have opposed it because we think it is of a partial character, that it partially applies to one section of the country and not to another. I understood the noble Lord to say that that is not the case, but I venture to think that there are in the boroughs many ratepayers who consider that the taxation upon them is as hard and oppressive in its incidence as in the case of the agricultural ratepayers. Again, the measure applies unequally to agricultural ratepayers; and I venture to say, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, that too much relief is given to the rich and that too little is given to the poor. This view is supported by Captain Pretyman, who speaks with considerable authority on matters of this kind, and who gave evidence before the Commission on Local Taxation. Captain Pretyman was asked—
    "Would you propose that the application of that principle should be further extended, and that, in the event of its being decided that that is the most convenient way of remedying your grievance, land should be rated, not at one-half, but at a lower proportion still?"

    407
    And he replied—
    "No, I cannot say that I think it is entirely satisfactory, because the land which is best able to bear the burden gets the most relief, and the land which is least able to bear the burden gets the least relief. That is inseparable from that form of relief, and that is one of the reasons, I suppose, why it was made only temporary."
    I shall not go over the various Reports but I believe everybody is agreed that it is most desirable that a comprehensive system of local taxation should be introduced in a new form. During the past sixty years great changes have taken place in this country with regard to property. There has been an enormous accumulation of personal moveable property, and in that way it seems hard on those who have nothing but real, immovable property that the great burden of taxation should be put upon them. In all the Reports—and the noble Lord's Commission has not escaped without a considerable number of Minority Reports—there is a recommendation, which I was glad to notice, that the question as to agricultural land being rated at a different figure from other property should be considered. I would specially commend to the consideration of your Lordships the report by Sir E. Hamilton and Sir G. Murray, in which they recommend—
    "That the aggregate grant should be directly allocated among the various local authorities entrusted with the expenditure on a scheme such as we have propounded, paying due regard to the news of each district and to its ability to meet them, and uniformly applied to urban and rural districts alike."
    And then they recommend—
    "That the occupiers of agricultural land should be assessed by local authorities at half its value for onerous rates, but for onerous rates only."
    We ought to attach great importance to these recommendations, for they are contained in a most remarkable Report, issuing as it does from two eminent financiers. I hope your Lordships will note that, though they say that, with regard to onerous rates, agricultural land should be rated at half its value, they combine that with a general review and general alteration of rates both in urban and rural districts. That is a point on which we think the greatest stress ought to be laid. What is really wanted is a comprehensive general
    408
    measure for patting the whole rates of the country on a satisfactory and lasting footing. These temporary measures are not, we think, to be justified. I do not see that the agricultural industry has any more right to separate treatment than the woollen, the cotton, or he iron trades, but what I do say is that where it is shown that the incidence of taxation falls unfairly on agricultural land it should be reminded. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord, than whom no one is more qualified to deal with the subject, will be able in the four years to introduce a great measure such as I have suggested. I wish the period had been somewhat shorter, as then, perhaps, more pressure could be brought to bear on the Government of the day to deal with this important subject.
    On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Five of the clock, till to-morrow, at a quarter past Four of the clock.