Sitting of 13 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY (LTD.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  [UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
  MR. PARKER SMITHmoved that this Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

  231
  He said the point he had to raise was a novel one, but of some general interest with regard to the working of the Private Legislation Procedure Act of Scotland. Under that Act several inquiries had been held in Scotland, and this was the first occasion on which opponents had asked to be heard in this House after having been unsuccessfully heard in Scotland. The question which the House had now to determine for the future was, What were the rights that opponents had to be heard here after they had been heard in Scotland? He contended that, according to the express provisions of the Act, any opponent whose opposition was not simply frivolous had a right to be heard here. It was not a question of asking the House to upset the decision of its Committee, but it was a question of the right of having a second hearing, which was given by the Act of 1899. The Scotch Committee of Members of both Houses was a strong one, and he would hesitate very much to ask the House to pronounce any final opinion upon the merits of a question that had been heard and decided by that Committee. All he wished to point out was that the duty of the House was not to decide on the merits, but to send the matter upstairs to a Joint Committee as provided for by the Act. The Arizona Company was a company of Scotch domicile. He knew nothing about it or its directors. It had had a very chequered career, but it was now getting into smooth waters, and was much more prosperous. It had found that it had outgrown its original memorandum and articles, and, by general consent of the shareholders, it sought to put the matter straight by Parliamentary powers. Being a Scotch company, it had to present a petition to the Secretary for Scotland for a Provisional Order. Then, under the terms of the Act, an inquiry was held in Edinburgh. One provision which was strongly opposed by certain of the shareholders was a general indemnity for the directors for all their acts in the past, so as to make a clean slate for them. There was a certain transaction which took place many years ago, and which was challenged, by which 10,000 shares of £5 each were issued to certain gentlemen as fully paid up, when, in fact, no cash was paid. Petitioning shareholders said this was improperly done,
  232
  and the case of the directors was that this issue was part of an elaborate compromise, and was in the interests of the company, and therefore a reasonable piece of business on the part of the directors. The Committee supported the view of the directors, and declined to make the alteration which the petitioning shareholders demanded, and which would have left the question of this issue of shares open to challenge in a court of law. Those petitioning shareholders had since this hearing commenced an action in the Court of Session, and he could not see who could go into this question except a court of law. It would be an extremely strong measure on the part of this House to interfere and pass an absolute indemnity without knowing anything about the merits, for that indemnity clause would make subsequent investigation by a court of law impossible. In asking for a second hearing he was merely asking the House to carry out the provisions which it laid down for the conduct of these matters in the Act of 1899. Objection was taken that the local hearing should be final, but in the discussion on the Bill the Lord Advocate had clearly pointed out that upon unopposed orders there was to be no second inquiry in London but that upon opposed orders there should always be the possibility of an opponent coming to this House. Of course the opponent had to run the risk of the costs if he were unsuccessful.
  MR. RENSHAWseconded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that he desired to meet the motion with a direct negative. The House had substantially devolved its private Bill business to local committees of inquiry, and he read with dismay the statement made by the Lord Advocate the other night that he would heartily support the motion of his hon. friend that an appeal to a tribunal of this House should be allowed in these cases. That statement contained the minimum of comfort with the maximum of in

  233
  accuracy. He had read the speech of the Lord Advocate on Tuesday with dismay, and he ventured to say that it contained the minimum of comfort to the Scottish people and the maximum of inaccuracy. The Lord Advocate cited certain utterances of Members of the House, and he said that they expressed the views of Members of the House when the Act passed through Parliament. Nothing of the kind. There were no utterances in the House of Commons with regard to the law as it now stood. The law was the result of a compromise in the House of Lords. When the compromise was arrived at in the House of Lords on the 27th July, 1899, Lord Balfour of Burleigh said—
  "While I could not myself view with acceptance or favour the doing away with the second inquiry altogether, I am quite willing to consider proposals that may be made for the purpose of preventing such an absolute power being placed in the hands of those who, having had one inquiry, wish to repeat it over again before another tribunal."
  He wished to ask why the Government had now taken up such a different line. He should like to say that up to the present the Act had been a conspicuous success in Scotland. The proceedings had worked well, and the public in Scotland were satisfied with it; but if the present proposal were carried all that would be substantially undone, and he felt bound to enter a prompt and emphatic protest against such a suicidal course. The Bill before the House had been affirmed by the two Chairmen of the Houses of Parliament to be a Bill of no great magnitude, of no great public importance, and a Bill which involved no question of public policy. It had been inquired into locally by a joint Committee of the two Houses, and the House knew perfectly well that, if the two Houses had again to select a powerful and influential Committee, that joint Committee would be exactly the Committee to be chosen. Why, therefore, should one little clause of one little Bill be again put to the hazard by the proposal of the hon. Gentleman? There was no need to talk about the merits of the Bill; he wanted to destroy at once what would be a very bad system. He had read certain petitions presented against the Bill, but he positively declined to enter into the
  234
  merits of the questions raised in them. He did not find that there was any suggestion that the matter was not argued to the full before the Committee of the two Houses in Scotland, and no new fact was now before the House. If the principle of the motion were affirmed, they would be in a worse position than they were before. Under the old system there was an appeal from a Committee of one House to the Committee of the other, but now it was proposed to have an appeal from the Committee of both Houses to another Committee of both Houses. He wanted to be loyal to the Act. Clause 9 of the Act did not give any absolute right of appeal. There was a clause in the original Bill to the effect that a Bill should, if notice were given, be again referred to a joint Committee. They protested against that on the ground that it was a senseless proposal, and on the 20th of June he himself moved its rejection. There was an interesting debate, and, of course, the Scottish Members were swamped by the English Members, nine out of every ten of whom had not heard the debate at all. Thirteen Scottish Members voted in favour of a re-hearing and thirty-one against. On the 4th July he again moved the exclusion of the clause on Report, and the result was that thirty-six Scottish Members voted in favour of the exclusion of the clause, and only nine were found to support it. Then the Bill went to the House of Lords. It was absolutely and unmistakeably clear that Scotland wished the local inquiry to be a final inquiry, and a compromise was arrived at in the House of Lords by which it was provided that good cause should be shown before there should be a rehearing. The meaning of this day's proceedings was that the Government were not loyal to the compromise arrived at in the House of Lords. They were supporting the reaffirmation of a principle which was emphatically rejected by four votes to one of the Scottish Members. That was not fair to Scotland; it was not fair to the House, and was not loyal to the actual provision in the Act. Therefore he protested against it. The Act provided many precautions. The two Chairmen of the Houses of Parliament should decide whether a Bill was a big Bill or only an insignificant measure.

  235
  That was done, as he maintained, very drastically. Seven important Bills from Scotland had been cut out from the benefits of the Act, by the Chairmen.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It appears to me undesirable, and indeed out of order, to criticise the action of the two Chairmen of Committees.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid it was not his intention to criticise their conduct. It was merely an argument as to why a new Committee should be appointed. He found in the list of excluded Bills three great Scottish Railway Bills. The difference between the two classes of Bills was that the large Bills had to go before two Committees, and if there was any principle of that kind the result would be to give a better procedure for the larger Bills, but the little Bills would be worse off. There would have to be two Committees sitting twice, and what would be the proceedings of Committee No. 1 if they had to be revised by Committee No. 2? Neither trouble, expense, nor harassment would be saved. The proposal as to costs was ridiculous. What was required was to protect the little litigant from the large, overbearing litigant, who did not care what cost he was put to if he got his desire; the proposal struck out all the benefits of the measure in those particular cases. He objected to the way in which the Government treated their own offspring. The Bill having once seen the light was going to receive its death blow at the hands of the Lord Advocate. He desired the House to make this new departure on different grounds; he asked them to say that there must be either some new facts exposed by the petitioner or some gross blunder committed by the Commissioners or some error proved, before such a thing was allowed. Unless some common-sense rule was laid down of that kind the Act passed two years ago would be of no use whatever.
  *MR. J. E. GORDONsaid he hoped the matter would be treated without any party prejudice. A right had been created under the Act, of an appeal by an opponent of a Provisional Order to this House, but
  236
  in this case he submitted insufficient ground had been shown for such an appeal. The only reason for reconstituting a fresh Committee would be, firstly, that the Commissioners had committed a mistake of procedure—no such allegation had been made; secondly, that some new facts had come to light which were worthy of the consideration of this House—and that was not suggested. The hon. Member for Partick had not explained to the House how this small indemnity clause arose. That compromise happened in 1884. The sum under discussion was not £50,000, the £50,000 was only the nominal value of shares which in 1884 represented a cash sum of £6,000. An action for £220,000 had been entered recently with respect to this amount. In 1884 the shares were worth £6,000; at that time the company was in low water, and the shares worth about 12s., but could anybody say that a claim worth £6,000 in 1884 was worth £220,000 now? The claim had been before the courts, and already in 1898 it was in the hands of an agent who was no stranger to the fortunes of the company, and who, in fact, was a director. When the indemnity clause was put into the Provisional Order it was only by the goodwill of the Commissioners that this gentleman was allowed to bring in his claim; he exhausted his case before the Commissioners, and ran dry in the sands of argument; he absolutely failed to substantiate his objection. The House was now asked to grant a rehearing. He appealed to the Lord Advocate under the circumstances to leave the decision to the House and allow them to use their common sense on this matter.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said he could not disguise from himself the fact that this was a matter for the decision of the House alone, and all he sought to do was to impress upon the House, first of all, what it did when it passed this particular section of the Private Legislation Procedure Bill, and, secondly, what would be the consequences of its decision one way or the other. The point they had to deal with was a point of procedure, and the House should not be led away by the fact that this

  237
  Bill was of a particular class. The reason of the Bill was that the company was domiciled in Scotland, and, like many other companies, it had entered into proceedings which were afterwards found to have been irregular; in the meantime there had been immense transfers of share interests, and the proprietary interests in the company had been largely altered. The company came to the conclusion that it could not surmount its difficulties without Parliamentary powers, and the reason it had to go to Scotland for its private Bill was that the company was registered in Scotland. He was absolutely at one with the promoters that the Bill should be passed, but he disagreed with them as to the merits of this particular clause; it was, however, inquired into by the Commissioners, who decided that the clause should stand, and the last thing that he should attempt to do was to go behind the decision of the Commissioners. But persons who were affected by the decision of a Committee were not always satisfied, and the question for the House to decide was what was the position of a gentleman whose case has been heard by a tribunal and who was not satisfied and who appealed to the House of Commons? He would remind the House that the original scheme of private Bill legislation procedure was by way of Provisional Order, and it was afterwards to be decided by the Chairman of Committees which Bills were to be proceeded with by way of private Bill, and which by Provisional Order; after that the Provisional Orders were to have local inquiries. It was at first intended that those inquiries should be made by extra-Parliamentary tribunals, but that was subsequently altered, and the tribunals were to be composed of Members of Parliament, the number if necessary to be augmented by extra-Parliamentary members. Anyone who was dissatisfied with the action of the Commissioners at a local inquiry was to be allowed to lodge a petition with the Secretary for Scotland and come up to this House. There was to be in every case a confirming Bill, just as there had been under the old system, and as soon as the machinery of a confirming Bill was introduced it became obvious that every step from the first
  238
  inquiry leading to a possible second inquiry should be taken in this House, and it was necessary that a motion should be made in the House in order that the matter should be taken before another tribunal. It was afterwards suggested that, having an extra-Parliamentary Commission, it would be as well to do away with appeals altogether. There were cross currents of feeling in all these matters, and an Amendment to that effect was defeated, and a provision was embodied in the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act to the effect that a person who appeared before a local tribunal and was not satisfied should have a right to go to another tribunal. The words of the Act were these—
  "If, before the expiration of seven days after the Second Reading of a Confirmation Bill, under the immediately preceding section, in the House in which it originates, a petitions be presented against any Order comprised in, the Bill, and if, upon motion made, either House do resolve that it is expedient to inquire into the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the said petition, the Bill shall, subject to the Standing Orders, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
  Therefore, they were in the same position as an unopposed Bill in that case. It must not be supposed that he was standing here arguing that the House had not perfect power to refuse this motion. He absolutely conceded that. The point for the House really to determine was on which side the onus should lie. Was the true meaning, looking to the history of the Bill, that a gentleman who wished to appeal to the Joint Committee must come here and must, through the mouth of some hon. Member, perhaps, show to the House that he had got what might be called a proper case upon the merits to be referred, or was it the other way? He could not help thinking that the true intention of the House was to alter the meaning, and he did not think that there was anything more emblematical of that than the course which the hon. Member for the Border Burghs had taken. If he had said that no man had a right to have a second inquiry opened, and if he had gone into the merits of that, that could have been understood. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs said that he pronounced no opinion upon this whatsoever; for aught he

  239
  knew it might be the most crucial case for an appeal.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: Perhaps my right hon. friend will allow me to say that I have read the petition through, and I did not see any new facts which were not fully considered by the Committee. Having done that, I decline to alter what the Committee of both Houses has decided upon.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYasked whether there could be any appeal when there were no fresh facts. According to the forms of the House, the only procedure was by motion. As the hon. Member knew very well, no stage could be got here without going through the forms of the House. Therefore he was doing the hon. Member for the Border Burghs no injustice, but was merely quoting his own speech in which he said he conspicuously declined to go into the merits of this question.
  The first view the right hon. Gentleman sought to impress upon the House was that, inasmuch as the House had come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that there should be an appeal from the tribunal below, that appeal ought to be given as an ordinary right, unless somebody was in the position of being able to say that it was a case which ought to have been debated on appeal. He hoped he had made himself clear upon this point. Then he asked the attention of the House to another matter. What would the practical effect in this House be of taking either the one view or the other? As to the end they all had in view, he thought there was no disagreement. Their view was that the House should not be saddled with discussions upon these matters. The view taken by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs would, he thought, excite far more discussion. They had only got to deal with the man who was dissatisfied, and who had been beaten down below. The man who was dissatisfied would always feel that he had a prima facie case, and it was not too much to suppose that if he thought that, he would be able to find some hon. Member of the House to voice his case for him. The hon. Member says he had read this statement from cover to cover, and he did not see why
  240
  there should be a second appeal into the merits of the case. In every case there must be a discussion upon the merits. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said practically as regards this question, that if the procedure was to be to go to a tribunal below, and then to a tribunal above, it would have been far better to have had the old system. The right hon. Gentleman could not have said that if he had had the figures regarding our experience this very year. This year there were thirty-one Provisional Orders deposited at the Secretary for Scotland's office. Of these six and a portion of the seventh were by the decision of the Chancellor kept from Parliament. That left twenty-five and a portion of the twenty-sixth to come under the new procedures. Of these twenty-six no less than twenty-three were withdrawn. One had been refused by the Committee, and eleven, including that one, had been inquired into locally. Four of them had been read a third time in both Houses without further inquiry, and one-fifth of them had passed the stage in which an inquiry was impossible. A second inquiry was possible in five other cases, but there was no probability of any further action being taken. Therefore it practically came to this, that, out of the whole twenty-six cases disposed of, there had only been one appeal. That surely contrasted favourably with what would have happened under the old system, where in every case there would have been an appeal to the second House. They had not lost sight of the fact that appealing was a very grave matter, for they particularly put in, with the assent of the House, a clause as to costs, which was very much more stringent than anything which had so far obtained in Parliamentary practice Hon. Members were perfectly well aware that, according to the rules of the House, costs could not be given against an opponent, unless he had been somewhat vexatious. The clause they had put in was one which would be a safeguard against appeals being taken upon frivolous pretexts. That was the whole matter. He agreed entirely that it was a matter for the House and not for the Government, and he hoped the House would pause before it decided in

  241
  the way it had been asked to decide by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs. He believed that if the decision of the House was in accordance with what the a hon. Member for the Border Burghs asked, the result would be what the House wished to avoid—namely, these discussions would come on at the time of private business in order to see whether a Bill had been sent upstairs or not. After all, a member of the public would only enjoy something analogous to the old right he had, which was the right to appeal to the second House when he was dissatisfied with the decision of the lower tribunal.
  *MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that as one of the Committee there was one point which had not been brought before the notice of the House, and that was that the petitioner who objected to the proceedings here now had no locus standi before the Committee, but the matter was considered fully by the Committee who gave him a locus standi. The case was fully and ably argued by counsel, so that the Committee had the whole circumstances of the case before them in dealing with it. He thought it was right to bring that fact to the notice of the House. He could well understand that if the petitioner had not been heard he would have had a right to come to Parliament and ask, in justice, that his case should be gone into. The hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn had so fully stated the facts that it was not necessary that he (Mr. Wason) should state more than that the Committee were absolutely unanimous, and, as had been well pointed out, no fresh facts had been brought forward which were not before the Committee that had already adjudicated on the matter. He thought also the House ought to be reminded of the sea of litigation in which the Arizona Copper Company had been concerned. The case in dispute went back to 1884. He did not suppose that many of the parties to the dispute were alive at the present time. It would be a case of going against the trustees and executors of deceased people, and the Committee thought it would be unfair and unjust, after this long lapse of time, that the proceedings should be gone into again.
  242
  There was a special point which had been mentioned by the hon. Member opposite that he would like to emphasise, and that was this—the petitioner told them that he was a shareholder from 1882, and had continued so without any break-down to the present time, and that he had attended all the meetings of the company. He was present at the meeting at which this very agreement was read, of which he now complained, and from that day down to the present time he had never lifted his finger in the matter. The company had got some advantage under the agreement then entered into in respect to the deferred shares, and it would be wrong that any person should have the right to approbate and reprobate the agreement entered into. A memorandum had been sent round the Members of this House which was an extraordinarily misleading document from first to last. There was no better-known principle of law than that it was the interest of the State to put an end to strife and litigation. This litigation had continued too long, and now that the company was in smooth water he hoped the House would not lightly reopen the matter. It had been thoroughly gone into by a special Committee, and unless good cause was shown the House should not grant the petition.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he thought a great reform was effected in connection with private Bill business when the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act was passed, and he should like to see the same principle applied not only to Ireland but to England. But if the doctrine of the Lord Advocate was accepted he thought a fatal blow would be struck at the working of this system of devolution. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that wherever a party who had appeared before a Committee was dissatisfied he was entitled as a matter of course to come to this House and get an appeal to another tribunal. The facts were simply these. A joint Committee of both; Houses had unanimously decided upon the facts and merits of this case. Sup posing that were done in connection with an ordinary Bill, would the House entertain a proposal on the facts of this case for recommitting the Bill

  243
  to another tribunal composed of Members of this and the other House? It was not an appeal from an inferior to a superior authority that was asked. It was an appeal to the same authority—to another Joint Committee composed of different men. What they did in 1899 was to maintain the practical supremacy of Parliament, and they provided that in a case where it could be shown that an injustice had been done Parliament should have power to direct recommital. It was not, however, to be a matter of right for a petitioner to have another Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to try the case again because the decision had not been satisfactory to him. He did not consider that was contemplated, but the practical effect of what was proposed would be to upset this most beneficial mode of procedure, which, as the Lord Advocate had shown, had worked most satisfactorily in all the Scotch cases which had come before the Committee. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had stated in unmistakable terms that this was an open question to be decided by the House, and that it was not to have any element of party in it. In the interest of the successful working of this mode of procedure they should adhere to the decision the Committee had already come to.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): My right hon. friend the Lord Advocate has quite properly stated that this was a question for the House to determine, and what are the principles upon which the House ought to determine it? We are all agreed, as I understand, that in so far as it is possible there should be devolution of this private Bill legislation to the locality. We are also all agreed that in the last resort this House must keep its grip upon the private Bill legislation, whether it be for Scotland or for Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe we are agreed upon a third point, namely, that the system ought to be worked so as to give as little trouble to this House as possible. One of the things we chiefly want to avoid is these debates at the time of private Bill business, which waste a great deal of very valuable time, and do not always show the House of
  244
  Commons at its best. How is that end to be attained? I confess the question is not easy of solution. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and others who have spoken seem to think that it is perfectly clear that the best way of avoiding debates in this House is to say that there should be a good prima facie case made out in favour of the appellant, and that there can only be an appeal when cause is shown. I am not sure that that is the way to avoid debates in this House. If we take the opposite view, and say that unless there is a very strong case against appeal the appellant should go forward, it would probably avoid debate, or, at all events, there is a good deal to be said for the view that it would avoid debate, because under the Act there is a heavy penalty imposed upon a person who makes a frivolous appeal. I do not believe that the number of those-appeals would be great. I really think that unless there is a very strong prima facie case such an appellant would havevery summary treatment from the Joint Committee, and if the Committee agreed, as they probably would, with the local Commission, the appellant would be mulcted in heavy costs. Although it might throw a little more trouble upon the Joint Committee, it would probably relieve this House of a great many debates on the question whether or not sufficient cause had been shown for an appeal. I do not believe that it is possible, without further experience, to decide really which line of action would work best. I certainly do not think that the case is as clear as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton appears to think. We are all agreed as to what we want. We are all agreed as to the end to be achieved. We are largely agreed as to the machinery by which it should be attained, but the one point on which there is a difference of opinion must be decided by hon. Members, who have quite as much means at their disposal for coming to that decision as the Government can have. Personally, I shall vote with my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate, but I admit that the case is one of great difficulty, which should be left; to the House itself to decide.
  *MR. BLAKEsaid the main moving cause for the passing of the

  245
  Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act was to procure cheapness and finality in dealing with these measures. The demand from Scotland was based on the ground of the expense and protraction of the proceedings under the former system. There was also another object which Parliament tried to meet, and that was devolution. The proposal of the Bill originally was that the trial should take place before an extra-Parliamentary panel, so that members of this House might be relieved from their labours as members of Private Bill Committees. That was embodied in the Bill when it went to the Committee to which it was referred, but the members of this House were disinclined to part with their power of adjudicating through Parliamentary Committees; and although, as the Lord Advocate had said, the Act contained the useful power of filling up the tribunal from an extra-Parliamentary panel, yet the wish of both Houses was that the tribunal should be a Parliamentary one. The result was that instead of relieving Members their burden was increased, for they had to go to Scotland instead of the parties coming to Westminster. The gains were the cheapness of one single trial before a Joint Committee sitting on the spot over two trials by two Committees sitting at Westminster. He had heard suggestions made with reference to appeals from the Committee outside and the Committee below to the Committee above, but he did not understand this language. The Committee in this case was a Committee such as they had had some experience of in late years in reference to peculiarly complicated and difficult Bills, in which the sense of both Houses of Parliament was that they were best disposed of by the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses. And in such a Committee, so constituted, he thought a higher degree of representation and efficiency was likely to be attained than would be in the ordinary Private Bill Committee. Not a lower but a higher degree of representation was attained, and knowing something of the principle of action and the care which was taken with reference to the formation of Private Bill Committees by the Committee of Selection, he would say that the Committee, anxious
  246
  always to get the best Committee it could, exercised, and, he believed, rightly, peculiar care in the effort to make the panel up of the best possible material for the trial of those new Bills. He had no doubt the House of Lords did the same thing, and, therefore, they had the best that could be done in the way of the formation of the tribunal. He wanted to know if, instead of this Joint Committee which had been formed under the operation of this Act, it had been formed by the resolution of both Houses of Parliament with reference to some special highly complicated question, they would have heard the suggestions, except for the gravest possible cause, not merely alleged, but established here, to set up a new Joint Committee? He held that the suggestions made from the Benches opposite were not merely opposed to the letter but also to the spirit of the Act of Parliament, and that they would be destructive in effect of what was the intention of the Act of Parliament. They had practically lost already in the course of the passage of the Bill so much of devolution as would have relieved the Members of this House from acting. They gained in recompense for that loss the fact that the Committee was of the same order and quality, chosen with the utmost care, to which they were accustomed to give reverential respect. There was no ground at all for the proposal which had been made. It would be destructive of the larger part of the advantages of this Act that, as a matter of course, there should be a new reference, because one of the parties to the trial simply was dissatisfied. The defeated party was always dissatisfied. Let him, to use the French proverb, have license to curse his judges, but no absolute right to appeal. Parliament decided to deal with this reform with especial regard to the question of economy. Large and important questions in which it might be supposed that the litigants on either side had a full purse, and in which great interests were to be determined, were left to the old and cumbersome machinery of Parliamentary Committees. This Act was a poor man's Act, in which economy was of great consequence; and he said deliberately that in those classes of cases there was

  247
  great mischief done by appeals. Better occasionally have an erroneous decision than have an appeal in which lawyers get the oyster and litigants the shell. If there was indicated prima facie that so serious an injustice had been done as to justify that that evil of a new trial shall be admitted—for evil it was to have another trial—Parliament had power to interfere. He did not agree with the view of the Member for the Border Burghs that Parliament ought to interfere only in case of new facts. No. Occasion might arise—grave occasion—for interference in case of miscarriage of justice, or mistake of policy, on the facts before the Committee. He left Parliament as the Act left it, full power, but to be exercised only for grave cause shown, He was quite sure that ought to be the general impression, unless the House was seduced by the argument of the Leader of the House and of the Lord Advocate with reference to the saving of its time. It was suggested that they must do this thing in order to avoid debate. That contention was abandoned now. It was acknowledged there might be debate, and the question was upon what the issue was to be. Was it on a simple allegation that A or B was dissatisfied and wanted a new trial? Did they suppose it was only the disappointed litigant they could dissatisfy? They would dissatisfy the successful one by the course proposed. If they told him they were going to allow the case to be tried all over again, he would come here and say the unanimous verdict of the Committee was publicly attacked, and he would ask leave to defend the verdict, and enquire whether they were going, because A or B said he was dissatisfied, to put him to the expense and trouble to come to London and have another trial before both Houses of Parliament. Of course, they would have debate in support and in opposition to the motion. Let not this House inflict by such a suggestion as was now made a great and permanent evil. Let it not destroy to a large extent the efficiency and usefulness of this Private Legislation Act, even if by adopting that course they would save a little time and trouble. They would not in faith save time or trouble.
  248
  But anyway their first duty was to be just. It was to relieve the people in a distant part of one of these islands from an intolerable injustice that they passed this Bill; and let them not now on a ground that was fallacious destroy that relief and renew and aggravate the injustice.
  SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid there had been no attempt to show fault on the part of the Committee, and therefore it was a great misfortune that the motion had been proposed. He believed the Committee was one of the most competent that could have been appointed to deal with the Bill. He could state from personal knowledge that the decisions of the Committee had given the greatest satisfaction to all parties. He was very glad that the Government had intimated that this was not a Government question, and that the House was left to decide. He felt perfectly sure that the common sense of the House would decide that this appeal should not be granted. He was not a shareholder in the company, and he had no interest in the matter beyond the proper working of the new Act. He felt sure that if the appeal was allowed it would have a most disastrous effect on the working of the Act, and would give rise to most unmitigated complaint throughout Scotland. Something had been said about the waste of time in the House through discussions on private Bills. He believed that, if the House emphatically rejected this appeal, in future appellants would think twice before they did likewise. He thought no better means could be adopted for stopping vexatious appeals than to record the verdict of the House against this appeal.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid he regarded the right of appeal as one of the most important features of the Act. He believed that a greater blow would be struck at the new private Bill procedure for Scotland by the House refusing to admit the appeal than by admitting it. Very likely the rehearing would be adverse to the appellant, and he could not imagine anything more useful to the future progress of private Bill legislation in Scotland than that the first application for a re-hearing should be granted. He must support the pro-

  249
  posal that the Bill should be referred to another Committee, but he regretted that such an important question as that of devolution should have been raised in connection with the matter now before the House.
  Dr. FARQUHARSONsaid he would ask the House to pause before committing itself to a motion which would have the effect of absolutely destroying the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act which was passed with so much care two years ago. Nothing would be more adverse to the working of the Act than that the decision of the Committee, which was come to after careful inquiry, should be overturned in this House, perhaps on a snatch division. The hon. Member for Partick had given no reason whatever for the faith that was in him, and the Lord Advocate had brought forward the most extraordinary plea he had ever heard in this House, that the proceedings of a Committee of both Houses of Parliament could be overturned at the instance of a cantankerous and wealthy litigant. He believed that the granting of the appeal, instead of lessening confusion, would make "confusion worse confounded." He was bound to say that the Act had worked a great deal better than he expected. They were very careful in this House not to interfere with the proceedings of Committees upstairs, and he believed it was quite as much their duty to respect the action and authority of this Committee in Scotland.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he had great difficulty in making up his mind how to vote on the very important question before the House. He, as chairman of the Committee which sat on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, took a very strong view that where a tribunal consisting of Members of the two Houses of Parliament had sat locally, the House should not, without an extremely strong reason, interfere with the decision which had been arrived at. To act otherwise would not be putting the Joint Committee in a proper position. He was bound to say, from the evidence given to the Select Committee that that Bill was not the class of Bill which that
  250
  Committee expected would invariably be sent to Scotland at all. Although the company might be domiciled in Scotland, the shareholders might be resident in England or Wales, or even abroad, and even the property of the company was situated in another country. The only possible doubt in his mind was whether an injustice might not be done to, for instance, the shareholders of the company, who owing to the proceedings taking place in Edinburgh might not have received the necessary notices. He was, however, inclined to stop the proceeding on the Bill at that stage.
  MR. DILLONsaid that what had occurred to-day had fully justified his action in calling attention to this Bill. The subject before the House was of more importance than many matters which engaged the attention of Parliament. His chief object in rising at all, after such an exhaustive discussion, was to explain the ground why, while agreeing thoroughly with hon. Members for Scotland, he was unable to vote with them. He was of opinion that Bills such as that before the House ought not to be decided locally at all. Bills dealing with the reconstruction of companies and Bills containing an omnibus clause of indemnity for actions which might have been breaches of the Company laws should not be referred to local tribunals. If the practice were to arise of sending such Bills to local tribunals to enable company promoters and directors to evade and defy the Companies Acts, the door would be open to all kinds of abuses. It was on that ground, namely the nature of the Bill, that he could not vote on the present motion. He might say that the discussion fully justified those Members of the Irish party who viewed with considerable doubt the proposal to extend the Scottish system of private Bill legislation to Ireland. When he ventured to call attention to the matter the other day, he was jumped upon by the Lord Advocate, and was accused in one sentence of being in blank ignorance of the provisions of the Act, and in the next of having taken an unduly active part in its discussion. These were inconsistent charges, but neither of them was true. The Irish Members, of necessity, took great interest in the working of the Scotch

  251
  Private Bill Procedure Act, because they were promised or threatened with a similar system in their own country. The speech of the Lord Advocate, in which he expressed his bitter disappointment at the working of the Act, was a considerable justification for the action of the Irish Members in hesitating before going blindly for the extension of the system to Ireland. Whatever difficulties were experienced in working the system in Scotland, those difficulties would be increased tenfold in Ireland, and the discussion which had taken place had fully justified the attitude of the Irish Members.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that, while the debate had not altered his own opinion, still, the opinion of the House was so obviously on one side that he would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his motion.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that in view of the opinion of the House, he asked leave to withdraw his motion. ["No, No."]
  Question put and negatived.
  Bill to be considered to-morrow.

  CROMER WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  LEEDS CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken on the Derby Corporation (Extension of Borough, etc.) Bill, 1877, be referred to the Committee on the Derby Corporation Bill of this session.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  ARDROSSAN GAS AND WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  [UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
  Read the third time, and passed.

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

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  WINSFORD URBAN DISTRICT (GAS TRANSFER, ETC.) BILL.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
  STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY, AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL.
  ASPATRIA, SILLOTH, AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  NITRATE RAILWAYS COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

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

  SHREWSBURY GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

  LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (CANADA DOCK WORKS, ETC) BILL [Lords]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  COWES FERRY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT (WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [Lords].
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES-HEAD GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS, FINCHLEY AND HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  The Lords request that this House will be pleased to give leave to Mr. James Bigwood, a Member of this House, to
  254
  attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships in the present session of Parliament on the Finchley and Hendon Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Lords' message considered.
  And Mr. James Bigwood, in his place, having consented, leave given.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Colwyn Bay and Colwyn Urban District Gas Bill; Bury Corporation Tramways Bill; Midland Railway Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to Alfreton Gas Bill [Lords]; Omagh Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Bolton to construct additional tramways and to make street improvements, and to confer upon them further powers with respect to streets, buildings, sewers and drains, and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; to borrow additional moneys; and for other purposes." Bolton Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply of the Wisbech Waterworks Company, and to confer further powers upon that company." Wisbech Water Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the city of Bristol to enlarge their Greenbank Cemetery; and for other purposes." Bristol Corporation Cemetery Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Harpenden Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, and to in corporate and confer powers upon the Harpenden District Gas Company; and for other purposes." Harpenden District Gas Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Barrow-in-Furness to make additional waterworks, to make certain street works, and to make

  255
  better provision for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes."

  Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [Lords].

  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers upon the Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Rilway Company."

  Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Railway Bill [Lords].

  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Dover to make certain new streets; to lay down a tramway; and to confer further powers on the Corporation in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes."

  Dover Corporation Bill [Lords].

  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Heywood and Middleton Water Board to construct additional waterworks, to repeal and amend enactments relating to the water undertaking of the Board; and for other purposes."

  Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [Lords].

  BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  WISBECH WATER BILL [Lords].
  BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [Lords].
  HARPENDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
  BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  DOVER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  NAVAL WORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Ordered, That the Admiralty be at liberty to attend by Counsel and Agent before the Committee on the Naval Works Provisional Order Bill.—(Mr. Pretyman.)
PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petition from Farnham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION BILL
  Petition from Coseley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND). BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOSPITALS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT. (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Scotland, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Montrose, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Bradford; and Nuneaton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Coseley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against, from Stroud; Bradford (Yorks.); Crewe; and Manchester and Salford; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Arbroath; Weymouth (two); Sleaford; Wall Heath; Elham; Liverpool; Boro' Green; Blackheath (two); Attleborough; Jarrow-on-Tyne; Hebburn; East Islington; and Horslydown; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Kilninver and Kilmelford; and Killin; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petition from Braemar, in favour; to lie upon the Table
  TIED HOUSES ABOLITION BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Paper [presented 12th June] to be printed. [No. 207.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF WARWICK).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Warwick on the 7th May, 1901, altering certain Polling Districts in the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, on 31st January, 1901, and sealed on 21st February, 1901, amending Statutes IV., IX., X., XIII., and XVII. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 208.]
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Expenditure under the Act for the year 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2626 and 2627 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Medway Conservancy.—Copy of Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Conservators for the year ending 25th March, 1901 [by Act].
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Seventh Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Public Accounts.—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—THE PRESENT POSITION.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the

  259
  First Lord of the Treasury whether an early opportunity will be given to the House of obtaining full information as to the condition of affairs in South Africa.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I think the question of the right hon. Gentleman is a natural and proper one, but I am not aware that there is any information at our disposal which, in its general outline at all events, the public are not already acquainted with. Of course, all political reconstruction must wait until further progress has been made in military affairs, and as regards military affairs the House knows that the war is no longer a contest between organised military bodies. [Cries of "Oh!"] I do not want to give a controversial tone to my answer, and I will say between large organised bodies. The Boer forces are scattered over the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal Colony and in Cape Colony in small commandos, for the most part of about 100 or 200 men. The largest I have heard of amounts to about 600 men. The majority are of the kind I have indicated. Their total forces are estimated at about 17,000. The operations on which Lord Kitchener is engaged, of course, cannot have any kind of unity such as is given to operations against large organised forces. I do not know that there is any further information with regard to the war which I have to give to the right hon. Gentleman. I ought, perhaps, to add that there is no foundation for the rumours which I see are appearing in the public press as to peace negotiations.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the total organised Boer force is 17,000, and having regard to the fact that there are a quarter of a million British troops in South Africa, he will ask Lord Kitchener to settle the war?
  [No answer was given.]

  BOER PRISONERS—CONDITIONS OF REPATRIATION.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies
  260
  whether, on the restoration of the Boer prisoners to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, he will recognise all the rights of property of each prisoner as the same existed at the period of his capture so far as the same are capable of being ascertained; whether it is proposed to leave it open to each prisoner to choose the locality in which he is to settle, or whether any restriction is to be placed upon the areas open for re-population by the Boers on their return from captivity, and whether it is proposed to exact the oath of allegiance to His Majesty from each prisoner before repatriating him.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The question is premature. I am not prepared at present to make any statement regarding the conditions on which the Boer prisoners will be allowed to return.
  MR. BLACK: Will the right hon. Gentleman submit his proposals in this respect to the House for discussion?
  [No answer was returned.]

  SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES.
  MR. ALFRED PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House as to the arrangements that have been made, if any, for the relief of natives in the Transvaal and Orange River districts whose cattle and grain have been seized or destroyed, or who have been otherwise rendered destitute, in connection with the military operations against the Boers in those districts, and whether he will institute such inquiries and give such directions as may serve to materially lessen the privations to which the natives are exposed through disturbances for which they are in no way responsible.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any information pointing to the necessity of special arrangements at the present time for the relief of natives, but I called the attention of Lord Milner to the possibility of scarcity some months ago, and I will make further inquiry of Lord Kitchener. Meanwhile, I notice

  261
  that a large proportion of the population in the refugee camps are coloured persons.

  BOER PRISONERS—INTERNMENT IN INDIA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the statements in the official gazetteers of India respecting the positions and sanitary conditions of the town and fort of Ahmednagar, now being used as a Boer prison; whether he is aware that Major Gambier, R.E., reported in 1873, after the drainage operations, that all who lived in the fort, both Europeans and natives, suffered from fever; and that, in consequence, all troops were withdrawn from inside the fort and quartered in barracks built outside it; and seeing that the mortality of Ahmednagar town was 79·75 in 1899, 55·04 in 1896, and 61·63 in 1897, and that the mortality of children under one year of age was 524·89 in 1899, against an average in that year of 196·97 for the whole Bombay Province, whether he will consider the advisability of the removal of the Boer prisoners to some other station.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Baling): There is no intention of removing the Boer prisoners from Ahmednagar cantonment, which is one of the healthiest and most popular garrison stations in India. Major Gambier's report is twenty-seven years old, and was made before the sanitary improvements were effected which have since made the fort salubrious. The mortality statistics quoted are misleading, and include urban areas outside the town. During the famine of 1899 there was a heavy mortality amongst the distressed people who flocked into the town from the drought-affected districts.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the noble Lord be kind enough to say in what way the figures are misleading?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The figures for the year 1898, which are the lowest in the four years in question, are omitted. Then the figures apply to exceptional famine conditions, and, as I
  262
  have said, include urban areas outside the town.

  FARM BURNING.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information to the effect that General Rundle, during his recent march through the north-western portion of the Orange Free State, blew up all the mills in the district, destroyed ovens, ploughs, and other implements for the preparation of food stuffs; and if so, whether such proceedings have the sanction of the Government as being in accordance with the customs recognised by The Hague Convention of civilised war.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any report from General Rundle on his expedition in the triangle between Ficksburg, Bethlehem, and Witjies Hoel, and as to the blowing up of the mills in the district, and the destruction of the ovens, ploughs, and other implements for the preparation of foodstuff's; and if not, whether he will inquire of Lord Kitchener concerning these matters.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a despatch or other communication respecting the operations of the troops under the command of General Rundle, General Campbell, and Colonel Harley during the past few weeks has been received; can he state what number of Boers were killed or wounded, and what is the proportion of wounded to killed; and whether the mills in the district were blown up, and ovens, ploughs, and other implements broken; and, if so, is this destruction of fixed and movable property which is of no military value in accord with the usages of warfare recognised by The Hague Convention.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): In reply to this and similar questions put by the hon. Members for Northampton and North Cork, no

  263
  official Report has been received as to the facts alleged. They would involve no breach of The Hague Convention, which expressly allows the destruction and seizure of an enemy's property if imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
  MR. FLYNN: Does that regulation apply to fixed property, such as mills, and places of that kind?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Anything which is likely to enable the enemy to obtain supplies in order to carry on the war comes under The Hague Convention.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman hold that the poisoning of wells comes under the same rule?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What about the natives in the places which have been destroyed?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say what the procedure is, but Lord Kitchener has done all he can to see that the natives are duly protected and kept from starvation. It is absolutely impossible in a war continuing in the way which this war is to avoid the destruction of supplies that would be useful to the enemy.

  REFUGEE CAMPS—MORTALITY AT JOHANNESBURG.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the prison camp on the racecourse at Johannesburg the deaths during the three weeks ending 13th May, 1901, were 80 out of a total of 3,125 in the camp, and that 220 are reported sick in the camp, chiefly suffering from measles; can he state what medical provision there is for treatment of sick in this camp, and whether any arrangements are in force for the isolation of those suffering from infectious diseases.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: May I, at the same time, ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that for the three weeks ending the 13th May there were 80 deaths out of a total of 3,125 persons in the
  264
  refugee camp on the racecourse at Johannesburg, equal to a rate of 435 per thousand for a year, and whether instructions will be given to improve the sanitary condition of the camp.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask if there has been any epidemic in British camps, and whether there is any precedent in history for the housing and feeding of the women and children of an enemy.
  MR. DILLON: These are not men. These are women and children.
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is impossible, of course, to avoid epidemics of this character in camps where there are refugees, or, in some cases, where there are British soldiers. I had already telegraphed to Lord Kitchener to report as to the accuracy of the figures quoted in the question, and have not yet received any reply. I have no recent information to hand as to the medical provisions for this camp, but the instructions general to all camps would appear to sufficiently secure proper medical treatment.

  HORSE TRANSPORT—STATISTICS.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many horses used for military purposes were shipped from South Africa between 1st January and 1st June this year, how many horses were landed in South Africa between the same dates, and what is the estimated cost per horse for conveyance each way between South Africa and England; and whether the Government would consider the possibility of chargers belonging to officers returning home being retained in South Africa for the use of officers proceeding from England to fill their places.
  *MR. BRODRICK: 120 horses, which were officers' chargers, were brought back from South Africa during the five months referred to. These included the horses of deceased officers, whose relatives wished to retain them. 33,483 horses were landed in South Africa in the same period. The cost of conveyance from England of remounts by freight or in

  265
  horse transports averages from £20 to £25. Officers' chargers are generally sent in infantry transports, and no extra cost is incurred for their conveyance. Chargers which are the property of the Remount Department are retained in South Africa. With those which are the private property of officers it is, of course, impossible to interfere.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: Is it not possible that the officers' chargers coming back from South Africa, some of which are not worth the cost of carriage, might be bought out there even as "cats' meat," and the cost of carriage saved?
  *MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. My hon. friend will, I think, understand that 120 horses coming back in the course of five months, at an average of from £20 to £25, including a number of chargers of deceased officers, is not an amount which will make a great difference either way. It is entirely a question for an officer, who has a charger on which he sets store, whether he leaves it in South Africa or brings it home.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: Does 120 represent the total number of horses sent back?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Yes; 120 only have been brought back altogether. Officers' chargers belonging to the Government are retained in South Africa.

  SUPPRESSION OF NEWSPAPERS IN THE PAARL DISTRICT.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain on what grounds Major Commandant C. Wedgwood has issued a martial law notice in the Paarl district declaring contraband in that district the following publications (among others)—namely, the South African News, Truth, Reynolds's Newspaper, the Review of Reviews, the Weekly Freeman, and the book entitled "With the Boer Forces," by Howard Hillegas, and that anyone found in possession of any of them will be punished under martial law.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No report on the subject has reached the War Office.
  266
  Martial law has been in force in the Paarl district since January, and the action taken is a matter for the discretion of the local military authorities, the exercise of which His Majesty's Government consider highly desirable.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Are they not all papers which object to the policy of the Government in South Africa?
  [No answer was returned.]

  RAIDING BY NATIVES UNDER BRITISH. MILITARY AUTHORITY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a statement of Mr. Brunner, Eshowe member of the Natal Legislative Assembly, that steps have been taken, with the cognisance of the highest military authorities in that country, to let loose the natives upon the enemy, and allowing them to loot and plunder; that the natives of Zululand had been instructed by the military officers to arm and invade the Vryheid district; that numbers of cattle had been brought in and handed over to a British military officer, and the Zulus were allowed 10 per cent. of all plunder; and that the Premier of Natal had protested to the military authorities that he believed that the military officer had greatly exceeded his instructions, and whether he has now received any reports on these matters.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Since the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, and the debate in this House on the 23rd May,* to which I must refer the hon. Member, I have received information that the civil authorities were now satisfied with the arrangements which had been made, and that the causes of disquiet on the Zulu frontier were removed.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: But were not protests made?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I challenge some of the statements made in the question. They were all dealt with in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen.
  * See preceding Volume, pages 952, 1022, and 1032.
  MR. BRYCE: Has the correspondence which was promised to for brought home yet been received?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Not yet. Any question as to that should be addressed to the Colonial Secretary.

  TREATMENT OF MILITARY DESERTERS.
  MR. GALLOWAYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two men charged with desertion from the 18th Hussars were marched through the public streets handcuffed together on Tuesday morning, 11th of June, in charge of a corporal and a private, and that these alleged deserters had been handed over by the police authorities at Marlborough Street Police Court for the purpose of being tried by the military authorities at Canterbury; and, seeing that these two alleged deserters, assumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law, were followed through the streets by a mob, whether he will, in the public interest, take steps that in future men charged with desertion should not be so treated by the military authorities.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The facts are as stated in the question, except that nothing is known at the War Office as to the mob. The procedure is contrary to the King's Regulations, and attention has been called to the error.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Could not the War Office set apart a certain sum of money to enable the men to be conveyed in cabs?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have said that what was done was contrary to the King's Regulations.

  VOLUNTEER SERVICE COMPANIES.
  MR. HAMMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that, notwithstanding the War Office cable of 21st December last, a number of members of the original Volunteer service companies who have served for over a year in South Africa, and who have been doing duty as mounted infantry for the last six months, are still detained in the country, and
  268
  seeing that these men are employed on precisely the same duties as members of the Imperial Yeomanry, can he explain why they do not receive the same rate of pay as the yeomen.
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener informs me that members of the Volunteer service companies employed as mounted infantry have been released. All men employed with the Line regiments must be paid as the Line.

  VOLUNTEERS AND RIFLE PRACTICE.
  COLONEL SADLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of supplying Volunteers with gratuitous ammunition to encourage private shooting practice.
  MR. BRODRICK: Artillery and engineer corps are supplied with twenty rounds per man and are not required to fire a compulsory course of musketry. Infantry corps are supplied with ninety rounds, out of which a recruit is obliged to fire forty-nine rounds and a trained Volunteer forty-two, leaving the remainder for private practices, etc. An additional ten rounds may be purchased at £4 per 1,000, and any further supply at £5 per 1,000. The question of whether any further supply is necessary is being considered.

  RANK OF RETIRED COLONELS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he would consider the advisability of granting to all colonels who have been employed in that rank, and who are compulsorily retired for age, a step of honorary rank.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. That system was abandoned some years ago, and it would be inadvisable to give the rank of general to officers who have not been so employed.

  PEMBROKE BARRACKS.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is proposed to convey the drainage from the new

  269
  barracks at Pembroke Dock into Milford Haven at a point where there are valuable oyster fisheries; and whether he is aware that the Local Government Board prevented the Pembroke Urban authority from conveying their sewage to this point owing to the probable danger of typhoid; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to the drains being diverted to another point.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The drainage system of the new barracks will be connected with the approved town drainage system now being carried out.

  H.M.S. "CRESSY."
  COLONEL LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will lay upon the Table of the House, directly he receives it, the report of the court of inquiry which is sitting to investigate the breakdown of the steering-gear of H.M.S. "Cressy," by which her departure to the China station will be delayed for some weeks.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): It is not the practice of the Admiralty to publish the proceedings of courts of inquiry, which are considered confidential. No satisfactory explanation of the accident to the steering gear of H.M.S. "Cressy" has yet been obtained. When the cause of the accident has been ascertained, I shall be happy to answer a further question on the subject.

  CHINA-DISTURBANCE AT TIENTSIN BETWEEN INDIAN AND FRENCH TROOPS.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information relative to the disturbance between the French troops and native Indian soldiers, at Tients in, on Wednesday, 5th June.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Sir Alfred Gaselee has informed me that the report of the disturbance referred to is without any foundation.

  EUROPEAN GARRISON IN CHINA.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to state what will be the strength and the disposition of the German troops which will remain in China for the purpose of safeguarding German interests.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): We are informed that the military representatives of the allied Powers consider it necessary to maintain for the present in North China a total force of 6,000 men, exclusive of the Legation Guards at Peking, but we have no information as to the number of men to be furnished by each Power.

  GERMAN GARRISON AT SHANGHAI.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Shanghai is officially described by His Majesty's Government as within the area of the Tientsin Provinces, and if he can state the reasons which have been put forward by the German Government to justify the maintenance of a German military garrison in that city.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: We have received no statement from the German Government bearing upon the retention of a German garrison there. Shanghai is in the province of Kiang-su, one of the provinces bordering on the Yang-tsze.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether under the Anglo-German Agreement Germany is not acknowledged to possess the same rights and privileges in the Yang-tsze region as were claimed by Great Britain?
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I must ask for notice of the question.

  KIAO CHAOW
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the

  271
  Government have sent, or intend to send, British troops to Kiao Chaow to assist in maintaining order there.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, Sir.

  STATUS OF THE BISHOP OF CALCUTTA.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the answer given by him on the 3rd of August, 1899, he can now state whether, having regard to the importance of His Majesty's Indian Empire, and to the fact that certain bishops of the Church of England in the colonies have recently adopted and assumed the style of Archbishop, His Majesty's Government will take steps by amending the statutes affecting the Church of England in the East Indies, or otherwise legally, to confer on the Bishop of Calcutta as statutory Metropolitan Bishop in India the style and precedence of an Archbishop.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I am well aware of the nature of the position of the Bishop of Calcutta as Metropolitan of India, and the suggestion contained in the hon. Member's question is not new to me. But there are so many important considerations involved that I cannot in advance give any definite pledge.

  NEW INDIAN FRONTIER PROVINCE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay Papers upon the Table of the House relating to the formation and future administration and financial arrangements of the new Indian Frontier Province; whether he can arrange for these Papers to include a map showing the exact boundaries of the Province; and whether the Papers can be laid upon the Table before the discussion on the Indian Budget takes place this present session.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I will present further Papers to Parliament, and I will also arrange to include a map showing as far as possible the boundaries. But I cannot fix the date for presentation, since I have not yet received a reply to my despatch dated
  272
  December 20, 1900, and when I do receive it the details will require careful consideration by myself in Council.

  JUBALAND EXPEDITION.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the total cost of the Jubaland Expedition, and how much, if any, of that cost was borne by India.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The accounts have not yet been made up, but a sum of £140,000 was voted in the Supplementary Estimates for the last financial year to meet the expenditure, which will be defrayed entirely from Imperial funds.

  BRITISH INVESTMENTS ABROAD.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Sir Robert Giffen at the Institute of Bankers, in which he placed the value of our excess of imports over exports last year, less freight and other charges, at £90,000,000, as representing the interest which we were entitled to receive upon our capital invested abroad; whether this £90,000,000, derived from investments abroad, paid income tax to the extent of the £4,500,000 which would have been collected if the £90,000,000 had been derived from investments in this country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The amount of income derived from investments abroad that is charged with income tax cannot be precisely stated. There is, however, good ground for supposing that it is not less than £90,000,000, and that it paid income tax to the extent stated in the question.

  CONSTANTINOPLE RIOTS OF 1896—BRITISH MERCHANTS' CLAIMS.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware

  273
  that the claims of French subjects in Constantinople who suffered losses during the disturbances of August, 1896, have been paid in full by the Porte; and can he state the reasons for the delay in satisfying the British merchants who sustained losses on that occasion, and whose demands have been admitted by His Majesty's Ambassador to be fair and reasonable, a certificate to that effect having been given four years ago.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the statement, which has appeared in the press, that the French claims have been paid in full by the Porte. The Porte has always refused to admit any liability for the claims of any of the sufferers, of whatever nationality, and all arrangements for satisfying them have been of an unofficial nature. His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that British claimants will not receive less favourable treatment than those of other nationalities.

  GOVERNMENT CARGOES FOR MOMBASA—CHARTER OF VESSELS.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many vessels have been chartered by the Crown Agents for the Colonies during the last twelve months for shipment of Government cargo to Mombasa, with dates of fixtures and rates of freight thereon.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There have been thirteen sailings since the beginning of 1900, and one more is contracted for. The rate of freight has varied from £1 1s. 3d. to £1 17s. 6d. The average has been £1 8s.

  WELSH COLONY IN PATAGONIA.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a report of the Rev. D. Richards, chaplain of H.M.S. "Flora," on the condition of Welshmen in Patagonia, has been received in his Department; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of it, and if it will be laid before Parliament.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The report has been received through His Majesty's
  274
  Minister at Buenos Aires, and is under consideration.

  EXPLOSIVES IN COAL MINES.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he explain why certain explosives which passed the special test, after July, 1900, for admission to the permitted list have not yet been authorised for use in dangerous coal mines according to Section 6, Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1896; and when he proposes to issue the Order in Council authorising the use of such explosives under the said section; and whether he is aware that loss has been suffered by explosive manufacturers owing to the delay in issuing the Order in Council, such loss being due to the cost of explosive plant, the product of which cannot be put on the market.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I regret very much that the issue of a new Explosives Order has been unavoidably delayed in settling the details of definition of the explosives which were to be added to the Special List. I have now signed a new order, and the explosives to which I understand my hon. and gallant friend to refer are included. I am causing all mine-owners to be informed by circular that these explosives may now be lawfully used in dangerous mines.

  NORTH WALES MINES INSPECTORS.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any person, and, if so, who has been appointed inspector under Section 15 of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, and Section 2, Subsection (2), of the Quarries Act, 1894, for the North Wales district, lately in charge of Dr. Foster; and, in the event of an appointment having been made, whether the gentleman appointed has a knowledge of the Welsh language.
  *MR. RITCHIE: In consequence of Dr. Foster's retirement, I have decided to rearrange the work and the districts of the Mines Inspectors. Dr. Foster's district will be distributed amongst other Inspectors, and I have assigned the

  275
  general charge of the North Wales portion of it to Mr. Hall, one of the oldest and most experienced inspectors, who has for many years had under his charge the coal mines in North Wales. The ordinary work of inspection will be carried on by Dr. Foster's assistants, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jones, who both speak Welsh as their mother tongue. They will be relieved of work in the south eastern counties which has hitherto lain upon them, and will be able to give more time than formerly to inspection in North Wales.

  WELSH-SPEAKING MINES INSPECTOR.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has in consideration or in contemplation a proposal for the division of the South Wales Coal Mines District (No. 13) into two parts for inspection by two of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines; and, if so, whether he will appoint as the new inspector a gentleman who has a knowledge of the Welsh language, so that he may, if necessary, hold direct communication with Welsh-speaking miners.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir. I propose to divide the South Wales District into two. As I said just now in answer to the hon. Member for East Denbighshire, I am making some re-arrangements of the Mines Inspectors' districts. I found that the work of the South Wales district has recently grown enormously, and is now too heavy a charge for any one chief inspector. One division of it will be retained by the existing inspector for South Wales. The other will be taken by another inspector set free by re-arrangements elsewhere. I do not propose to make any new appointment, but there will continue to be in South Wales, as at present, four Welsh-speaking assistant inspectors.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Are the new appointments to be Welsh inspectors, or are they to be transferred from England?
  *MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Gentleman implies by that that we ought to appoint a Welsh-speaking chief inspector, I have to inform him that, unfortunately, there are none of the chief inspectors
  276
  who can speak Welsh; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the assistant inspectors are men who come in closer contact with the miners than the chief inspectors, and those all speak Welsh. I can only say that Welsh Members may take it from me that, whenever the opportunity arises, I shall be only too glad to take care that Welsh-speaking sub-inspectors are appointed when appointments are made in Welsh-speaking districts.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take into consideration the possibility of appointing as chief inspector one of the assistant inspectors who does know Welsh?
  *MR. RITCHIE: If there was any vacancy I should be glad to take the matter into consideration, but the hon. Gentleman will understand there is not really any vacancy for a chief inspector at all. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not desire that a district should be taken charge of by an assistant inspector instead of a chief inspector. I shall be glad to take into consideration any recommendation of the hon. Gentleman, and I will take care when new appointments are made in Welsh-speaking districts, if it is at all possible to meet the desire of the hon. Gentleman, to have a Welsh-speaking inspector in Welsh-speaking districts.
  AN HON. MEMBERasked whether in North Wales, where a vacancy had occurred, the right hon. Gentleman would appoint a Welsh chief inspector to take the place of Dr. Foster, who had resigned.
  *MR. RITCHIE: No; a vacancy has not occurred, simply because, as I informed the hon. Gentleman, we are making re-arrangements in Wales. We are going to divide up Dr. Foster's district, and to allot it to two of the existing; inspectors, and there are none of those inspectors who can speak Welsh. I cannot appoint an unnecessary inspector in order to get an inspector who can speak Welsh.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896—FREE ADVANCES.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE JONES: I beg to ask

  277
  the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how much of the £250,000 voted by Parliament under the Light Railways Act, 1896, for free advances remains still available for that purpose, and also how much of the £750,000 voted for loans under the same Act remains.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The Treasury have conditionally agreed to special advances under Section 5 of the Light Railways Act amounting to £197,250, of which £181,750 is by way of free grant and £15,500 by way of loan. There remains therefore a sum of £52,750 available for special advances under that section. No loans have been granted under Section 4 of the Act, and the whole of the sum of £750,000 referred to by my hon. friend remains unappropriated.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS AND CYCLE RATES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be prepared in the Committee stage of the Light Railways Bill to introduce clauses making it compulsory upon the promoters of light railway schemes to make provision for the conveyance of bicycles; and whether he will also propose a maximum schedule of charges.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I am not prepared to introduce clauses placing upon the promoters of light railway schemes obligations not imposed upon railway companies generally. Any alteration of the law on this subject should, in my opinion, be of general application. I may say that the Board have, with the consent of the promoters, inserted in some Light Railway Orders a maximum scale of charges for the carriage of bicycles.
  MR. LOUGH: But if the Board of Trade thought it right to insert in some of the Light Railway Orders a provision with regard to the carrying of cycles, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that should be imposed on all companies?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

  IMPORT OF IRON ORE INTO SOUTH WALES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the quantity of iron ore imported last year into South Wales ports; whether he is aware that the steel works of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire are entirely dependent for their supplies upon ore imported from Spain and Algeria, and that the percentage of iron in the ore imported from Bilbao shows a continuous falling off owing to the best quality ore becoming exhausted; and whether the Government has received any notification from the Spanish Government that it intends placing a duty on exported ore beyond that required to meet shipping and dock expenses, with a view to conserve its mineral wealth, which is being rapidly worked out and cannot be replaced.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The quantity of iron ore imported last year into South Wales ports was 1,036,586 tons. There are no official statistics respecting the countries of origin of the iron ore used in steel works in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, or the percentage of iron in the ore imported from Bilbao. No notification has been received from the Spanish Government of the nature referred to in the last paragraph of the question.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL WORK.
  MR. BOND: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Board of Education have received the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the best means for co-ordinating the technological work of the Board with that at present carried on by other educational organisations, and whether and at what date such Report will be printed and published.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Report has been received, but it is not proposed to publish it.

  ESSENDINE ROAD BOARD SCHOOL.
  *LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the

  279
  Committee of Council on Education whether the attention of the Board of Education has been drawn to opposition by managers of local voluntary schools and by the Religious Education Union to the extension of the board school in Essendine Road; whether he can state how many children resident in Willesden there are in London board schools in the district bounded by the boundary of Willesden, by Maida Vale, the Grand Junction Canal and Kensal Green Cemetery (which is substantially identical with the School Board sub-divisions Y and Z, Marylebone; and AC 2, Chelsea); whether there is any prospect of the Willesden School Board making increased provision of school places, and whether the Board of Education will withhold its sanction to the proposed extension in Essendine Road.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. To the second paragraph the answer is in the negative. Such information can only be obtained from the London School Board. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative so far as the Willesden School Board is concerned, which is now building. The question as to whether the sanction of the Board of Education will be given or not is now tinder consideration.

  RATE AID FOR VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a round table conference, held under the presidency of the Bishop of London, at which a resolution was moved in favour of rate aid to voluntary schools, when his Lordship, in reply, said they had been for some time elaborating their plans in regard to the education question, and were in communication with the Government; and whether such communications have been received by his Department; and, if so, whether he is prepared to lay them upon the Table of this House.
  SIR J. GORST: I have not heard of any such communication having been received by the Board of Trade.

  EVENING SCHOOL CODE.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state when the Evening School Code for 1901 will be issued.
  SIR J. GORST: The regulations for giving grants to evening schools are now under consideration. It is hoped to issue them shortly.

  BREAKING UP OF THE LONDON STREETS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has observed the inconvenience and loss of time and money to which the people of London are subjected by the way in which the numerous authorities in the same area resort to the consecutive taking up of the most frequented streets; can he state how many London authorities have this privilege for gas and electric lighting, telephonic and telegraphic communication, paving, drainage, water supply for domestic use and hydraulic power, and other purposes: and will he consider the possibility of bringing all these bodies and companies under one licensing head, which shall have control of the taking up of the streets.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am unable to give figures in answer to my hon. and gallant friend, but the number of bodies, both local authorities and trading companies, who have obtained from Parliament powers of breaking up the streets is large, and I agree that very considerable inconvenience often results from the exercise of these powers. Recently, of course, the evil has been aggravated by the operations on behalf of the Post Office in connection with telephones, which are, I hope, drawing to a conclusion. I should be very glad if any remedy could be found; but so far I am afraid that I have not seen any proposal that would be practicable and meet the case.

  ALIENS IN LONDON.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state when

  281
  he expects to be in a position to state the results of the recent Census as regards the alien population of London, and more particularly in Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, Poplar, Stepney, and St. George's-in-the-East.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. friend on the 10th May last, particulars as to the number of aliens will be published in the detailed abstract of the Census Returns, required by Section 8 of the Act. The detailed abstract for London will be issued before that for the rest of the country. The preparation of the abstract is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible, but I understand from the Registrar General that a considerable time must necessarily elapse before it will be ready.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THE TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state, having regard to the estimated value of work done by the Postal Telegraph Department for the public service in the year ending 31st March, 1900, at £70,746 11s. 6d., as stated in Appendix (1), 46th Report of the Postmaster General, what was the corresponding value of the services rendered for the same year and for the year ending 31st March, 1901, in respect of the work done without charge for the railway companies of the United Kingdom by the Department; and as there is a loss of revenue on the working of this Department, if he will take steps to have the relations of this Department towards these companies brought before the House, with a view to their revision.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The value of the services rendered by the Post Office to railway companies during the years ended 31st March, 1900 and 1901, in respect of the transmission of telegrams on the business of the companies, either free or at reduced rates, is estimated at £59,676 and £52,063 respectively. These
  282
  services are not, however, on the same footing as the work done by the Post Office for public Departments, seeing that the free message privilege was given to the companies as part of the consideration paid for the acquisition of their telegraph rights. Some time ago the matter was brought under very careful review, and the Postmaster, General does not at present see any sufficient reason for altering the existing arrangements.

  TELEPHONE DELAYS BETWEEN NORTHAMPTON AND LONDON.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the delays caused to those wishing to use the telephone between Northampton and London; whether the official reports show that these delays are due to there being only one wire, and whether the Post Office can and will obviate them by providing an additional wire, or by other means.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There appear to have been a few cases of delay recently in telephonic communication between London and Northampton, but in several of these cases the circuit has been temporarily interrupted by unavoidable faults or occupied by traffic diverted from other interrupted lines. There is at present only one direct circuit, but there are alternative routes for London traffic via Coventry and Leicester. A second direct circuit is about to be completed, and it is hoped that, when this has been brought into use, the delay will be entirely obviated.

  POSTAL ORDER BRANCH—WOMEN CLERKS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a petition from the women clerks of the postal order branch praying for an increase in the initial salary of their class, which salary was reduced from £65 to £55 per annum in 1897, and whether he can see his way to granting their request.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received and duly

  283
  considered the memorial referred to, and he has answered the memorialists that the circumstances do not admit of his complying with their wishes.

  UNDERGROUND CABLE TO BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether the new underground electric cable from London to Birmingham has realised official expectations; also, how it compares in swift and effective action, distance for distance, with overhead wires, both as regards telephones and telegraphs, and have the Post Office department any information showing the nature of the results of working the cable wires as part of telegraph circuits 300 or 400 miles long, such as those to Dublin and Edinburgh.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is of opinion that the underground cable between London and Birmingham has realised the expectations of the department. It was not intended to be used as a telephone cable, the idea being that it would benefit the telephone service by setting free overhead telegraph routes, which would then be available for telephonic purposes. For long-distance telephonic communication it is important that aerial wires should be available. For ordinary telegraphic communication there is no diminution in the speed of working through the cable as compared with an overhead line, but for high-speed news circuits the cable at present involves the use of two wires as compared with one overhead wire. Combined with overhead wires the cable is being used for circuits extending to Belfast, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, which are each over 400 miles long. The cable has proved of the greatest utility in giving steadiness to the service, and in enabling the department to maintain that service during interruptions of the overhead lines by storms.

  SOUTH PETHERTON POST OFFICE.
  *MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General,
  284
  whether he is aware of a strong feeling at South Petherton, Somerset, against the removal of the post office there to another part of the parish, and whether he will take the opinion of the parish council of South Petherton as to this change.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe removal of the South Petherton Post Office to its present site, which is central and convenient, was authorised after full consideration of the circumstances, and the Postmaster General sees no reason for departing from the decision arrived at. Within the last few days a memorial' from a considerable number of the inhabitants has been received in favour of the retention of the office in the new position.

  MALLAIG MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that the present experimental service for the conveyance of the Stornoway mails via Mallaig has been in force since the 1st of April, will he say for how long a period he intends to continue the service as an experiment, and will he give some assurance that, so soon as a definite service is determined on, tenders will be invited for the mail steamer service to and from Stornoway.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is unable to say for how long a period it may be found desirable to continue the service between Mallaig and Stornoway as an experiment; nor can he give any assurance that tenders will ultimately be invited for the mail steamer service to and from Stornoway, and he sees no reason at present to suppose that such a course would result in a more economical arrangement than the present.
  MR. WEIR: And is the experiment to continue until the mails go down to the bottom of the sea?

  AVOCH HARBOUR, ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that the proprietor of Avoch Harbour, Ross-shire, returned

  285
  home from Ceylon some time since, will he state whether the Fishery Board for Scotland has yet approached him with a view to secure the repair of the present harbour or the construction of a new one, and, if not, will he state what steps it is proposed to take to provide suitable harbour accommodation at Avoch.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): As I told the hon. Member on 1st April last, I can give neither determination nor admission as to who is the proprietor of Avoch Harbour. But the initiative in the renewal of negotiations on behalf of those locally interested must rest with them and not with the Fishery Board.

  SHADER COVE, ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have received a petition from the fishermen of Shader, in the Point District of Lewis, Ross-shire, urging the removal of an overhanging rock which threatens to fall and render the bight or cove at Shader dangerous as a landing place, and will he say whether the Board can see their way to grant assistance in the matter.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The petition was before the Congested Districts Board on the 4th instant, and they have intimated a grant to the county council.

  BRECHIN LABOUR DISPUTE—CASE OF JAMES BEAN.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sentence passed by Sheriff Lee, in the Forfar Sheriff Court, upon James Bean, tailor, Brechin, who was found technically guilty of a breach of Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act for having jeered at some blacklegs, and was sentenced to thirty days imprisonment without the alternative of a fine, and whether, considering the length of this imprisonment for the alleged offence, he will cause the accused to be at once set at liberty.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland has made inquiry
  286
  into the case in question. The offence for which sentence was passed was not merely technical, and the Secretary for Scotland sees no reason for advising any remission.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: But did not the Sheriff himself describe the offence as technical, and does not strong indignation prevail in the district in regard to the sentence?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Sheriff would hardly have described as technical an offence for which he sent a man to prison.

  KILLILAN DEER FOREST.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the farms of Faddoch and Killilan, in the Parish of Kintail, Ross-shire, formerly in the occupation of crofters, and recently occupied by a farmer, are to be cleared of sheep and cattle and added to the deer forest of Killilan; in view of the fact that 7,000 acres of this forest were scheduled by the Highlands and Islands Commission in 1892 as suitable for crofters' holdings or small farms, will he say whether the Government will consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to check the extension of deer forests, especially in cases like the present where part of the existing forest has already been reported as suitable for occupation by the people; and is he aware that the farm of Lienassie, in the same parish, and lately in the occupation of a farmer, is also to be cleared, and reserved for deer.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I find, after consultation with the chairman and secretary of the late Deer Forest Commission, that they have no information as to the clearing and afforesting either of Faddoch and Killilan, or of Lienassie. I am informed by them that no part of the forest of Killilan was scheduled yellow as suitable for new holdings by the Deer Forest Commission, but certain parts were scheduled brown as suitable for moderately sized farms above the limit of £30 rent. I may also mention that none of the lands referred to by the hon. Member fall within the area

  287
  declared congested by the Congested Districts Board.

  SCOTTISH MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that a medical officer of health is required to be the holder of a public health diploma, will he explain how it happens that of the 278 medical officers of health for Scotland only sixty-one possess the required diploma.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The great proportion of local medical officers of health in the various districts of the counties in which they are employed do not possess the qualification referred to by the hon. Member because it was unnecessary in the case of appointments made prior to the coming into force of the Public Health Act of 1897, namely, 1st January, 1898. As regards burghs, the qualification has been imperative only in the case of appointments made subsequent to 15th May, 1894.

  IRISH INVENTORS AND AMERICAN SPECIFICATIONS.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Irish inventors are unable to consult American patent specifications anywhere in Ireland, but are put to the expense and inconvenience of visiting London if they desire to consult American specifications, and that a free gift of all American patent specifications was offered to the trustees of the National Library in Dublin, but had to be declined on account of want of space and of insufficient staff; and, in view of the hardship and unequal conditions to which Irish inventors are thereby subjected, will suitable space be provided by the completion of the east wing of the National Library or otherwise.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I have already replied to an inquiry on the subject of the first paragraph. The question of providing suitable space in
  288
  the east wing of the library will not be overlooked.

  KENMARE RIVER—LIGHTS.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Kenmare River, county Kerry, which forms an inlet about thirty miles in length, is unprovided with lights, and that the absence of such lights is detrimental to the interests of Sneem, Kenmare, and other places at which steamers and fishing vessels call, and, seeing that the erection of a light on the western point of Sherky Island, which is situated about half way up the bay, is required, would the Congested Districts Board, in view of the increased facilities that would be thereby given to trading vessels, consider the advisability of erecting such a light.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Congested Districts Board could not undertake the erection of a light such as proposed. This could only be done by the general or local lighthouse authority within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

  DUBLIN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to establish the industrial schools in Dublin on the same plan as prevails in Glasgow and Liverpool, where they are open to the public.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Legislation would be necessary for this purpose, and I am unable to give any undertaking on the subject this session. But it is one that deserves and shall receive attention in connection with the general question of industrial schools, upon which I spoke somewhat fully in the course of the discussion raised oh the 7th May by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny.†

  FERMANAGH ROYAL SCHOOL ENDOWMENTS.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  † See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciii., page 1015.

  289
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether students attending St. Macarten's Seminary, Monaghan, from districts outside the counties of Fermanagh and Monaghan are allowed to derive any benefit, either in the shape of reduced fees or prizes, from the Fermanagh Royal School Endowment; and whether he has any official information to the effect that a student named Keenan, from county Tyrone, has been admitted at £12 10s., half the usual fee; if so, will he cause an inquiry to be made in this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the scheme of May, 1891, contains no restriction as to the selection of students attending a qualified school, within the meaning of the scheme, to whom the Fermanagh Roman Catholic Board may provide prizes out of the endowments in the shape of reduced fees or prizes. I am also informed that the student named in the second paragraph has never received any benefit from the endowment such as suggested.

  PRICES OF IRISH BUTTER.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the prices of butter furnished in the Irish statistics for 1900 have been obtained solely, as in former years, by inquiry at the eight markets named in the Report; whether he is aware that in recent years a large proportion of Irish butter has been made and disposed of through creameries at much higher prices than in the markets; and whether he will undertake in future Reports also to furnish the prices obtained through these creameries.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the average prices for butter quoted in the publication referred to are based on creamery butter prices as well as on the prices of butter otherwise produced. The prices of creamery butter have also been separately published in a recent issue of the Journal of the Department of Agriculture.

  OGILBY ESTATE, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  290
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain the delay in the Land Judge's Court in regard to the sale of the Ogilby estate, in county Tyrone, to the tenants; and, seeing that final notice of sale was served on the tenants prior to 1882, that a similar notice was served in 1891, that an application was made by the tenants in 1899 to have the case listed under Section 40 of the Act of 1896, and that the turbary claims on the part of a section of the tenantry have been withdrawn, whether there are any reasons why the sale should not be carried through at once.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No delay, so far as the Land Judge's Court is concerned, has occurred in reference to the sale of this estate. Prior to the passing of the Act of 1896 the parties having the carriage of the sale appear to have been undecided whether to proceed to a sale or not; on two occasions a final notice to tenants was issued, but no further steps were taken to bring the estate to a sale. The estate first appeared in the Land Judge's list in March, 1899. No sale can take place under the 40th Section till the rental is settled. The estate consists of a large number of holdings, and the rental cannot be settled until all the disputes between the tenants in respect of boundaries, turbary, and other rights are disposed of. It is expected that the last batch of objections will come on for argument next week. After the decision has been given in these cases the estate will probably be in a position to be sold.

  KILLCLOONY PROPERTY.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Treasury, or some other department of the Government, is now in practical possession of the Killcloony property, which at one time belonged to a philanthropic company, who acquired it with the object of dividing up some grass farms it contained and selling them to the tenants so as to increase their holdings; and if the Government will, when selling this property, strive to fulfil the original object.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is not, as I have already informed the hon. and

  291
  gallant Member, any power under the existing law to act in the manner which he suggests.

  JUDGE CURRAN AND THE TULLA-MORE JURYMAN.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will recommend the remission of the fine of £10 imposed by Judge Curran at the last Tullamore Quarter Sessions upon the foreman of a jury in a case of alleged larceny, seeing that the county court judge upon the occasion referred to discharged the jury without allowing them to bring in a verdict.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have already stated that no fine was imposed on any juror on the occasion referred to. Consequently, the question of a remission of a fine does not arise.
  MR. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the official record of the case? I was in court at the time.
  [No answer was given.]

  R.I.C.—ACTION OF SERGEANT O'REILLY.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by whose authority Sergeant O'Reilly, of Shannon Harbour, King's County, went to the house of Michael Dolan, Lisclooney, no person being there but his wife and son, a boy under fourteen years of age, and took the boy, against the protests of his mother, into the stable to extract information from him, threatening at the same time to give him the prison unless his answers were satisfactory; although his mother stated that the boy was under age to take an oath.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The boy referred to in the question was a necessary witness in a case of arson, and his statement was taken in the usual way by Sergeant Reilly, on his own authority, in the ordinary discharge of
  292
  his duty. It is untrue that the sergeant made use of any threats, and equally untrue that the boy's mother protested, as alleged.
  MR. REDDY: The boy came to my house with the summons, and—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  MOYSTOWN ARSON CASE.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Peter Kerans, of Lisclooney, King's County, was arrested on a charge of alleged arson, and was subsequently admitted to bail to appear before a special court held at Moystown on Thursday, 6th instant; whether he can state the reasons for holding this special court when the ordinary petty sessions were coming on in a few days; and whether informations were refused by the bench in this case.
  MR. ATKINSON: Peter Kerans was arrested on the 30th May on a charge of arson; he was remanded for eight days, and subsequently admitted to bail to appear at Moystown House before a magistrate, in order that depositions might be taken. No special court was or could be held, and the charge being an indictable one, there is nothing to require that depositions should be taken at petty sessions. The next petty sessions will be held on the 25th inst. The informations were refused.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND THE UNITED IRISH LEAGUE.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose authority did a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Camp, county Kerry, on Sunday, 19th May, while members were being enrolled in the local branch of the United Irish League, take the names of those who joined, and is he aware that this constable on being asked to desist refused to do so.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The constable acted without authority. His sergeant ordered him to desist, and he did so.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the constable did with the names?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  BRACKLINN NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER'S PAY.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the teacher of Bracklinn national school, county Kerry, who taught Irish as an extra subject during the year ended 31st January, 1901, has not been paid for it; and whether the Commissioners will take into account, in fixing this teacher's salary, his classification, length and efficiency of service, size and importance of school, and previous teacher's income.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that this teacher has now been paid an equivalent results fee for the teaching of Irish during the period mentioned. In fixing his future income he will get the full benefit of the new rules. If it should be found that it would be inequitable to fix his future income on the average of his receipts from State sources for the past three years, the Commissioners will give the case special consideration.

  IRISH GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS AND THE FAIR WAGES RESOLUTION.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received complaints from the Dublin Bookbinders Society as to the manner in which Messrs. Blackie and Company evade the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution in the carrying out of their contract for the Government; whether similar complaints have been received from the same society by the Commissioners of Education regarding this firm; and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Government; and will he, should these complaints be substantiated, insist on the Messrs. Blackie carrying out the conditions of the Fair Wages Resolution in their contracts for the binding of the books for the Government.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the application of the Fair Wages Resolution
  294
  to the dealings of the Commissioners with the firm mentioned is still the subject of correspondence with the Commissioners. I would ask the hon. Member to postpone the question for a fortnight.

  PAUPER CHILDREN—SICK REGULATIONS.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that medical officers of Irish workhouses classify as sick not only those under treatment, but also children under two years of age and all assistants engaged in the work of the infirmary; is such method of classification permitted by the Local Government Board, and will inquiry be made as to the extent of the practice and orders given to classify as sick only those under medical treatment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Children under two years of age are not classed as sick unless they are under medical treatment. But, even if they were, I do not think the arrangement would be open to objection, as infants of this tender age in workhouses generally require much care. The employment of pauper assistants for nursing duties is illegal, and no healthy pauper engaged in menial duties is allowed to be classed otherwise than as healthy under the Board's regulations.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DISMISSAL OF MULLOUCH POLICE OFFICERS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant William Sheridan and Constable Mahony were discharged from the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 9th of February last without any reason being given for their discharge, and that Sergeant Sheridan applied for a statement of the charge against him, and for a sworn public inquiry into his case, and whether both these requests were refused; and will he state what were the grounds on which Sergeant Sheridan and Constable Mahony were discharged, and why was an inquiry refused.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 14th March, in answer to a question by the

  295
  hon. Member for West Clare,* I stated very fully the reasons which led to the discharge of these men from the constabulary. The discharge was ordered by the Lord Lieutenant in pursuance of the statutory power conferred upon him, and it is not proposed to reopen the case.
  MR. DILLON: The answer of the 14th March does not answer the question I have put.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer of the 14th March states that the men were discharged for having supported a charge with unsatisfactory and conflicting evidence, and their detention in the force was not considered further desirable. On that ground the Lord Lieutenant exercised the statutory power vested in him.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman does not answer the question I have put. I have carefully read the answer for the 14th March. I will further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the opinion prevails in the country that these constables were dismissed for placing threatening notices in the pocket of a man under arrest, and whether, in view of the interest which has been aroused, he will grant a sworn inquiry into the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not true that these policemen have been charged with having placed a threatening notice in the pocket of the man they arrested?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. DILLON: As I cannot get an answer, I shall repeat the question next week.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to answer only makes it necessary for us to trouble him again. We mean to ascertain the facts.

  J. C. JONES'S ESTATE, CO. CAVAN.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  * See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. xc, page 1578.
  296
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of the late John C. Jones, in the county of Cavan, has been in the Landed Estates Court for sale during the past twelve years and has not been offered for sale during that time; and can he state what reasons, if any, exist why it has not been offered for purchase to the tenants in occupation under the provisions of the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case of this estate came before the Land Judge on the 9th ultimo, when the solicitors having carriage of the sale represented that all parties were desirous of withdrawing the estate from sale. The case stands adjourned to enable the necessary formalities in this respect to be completed.

  NAVAN MAIL DELAYS.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will take steps to improve the postal regulations affecting the town of Navan, as under existing arrangements the mails do not arrive there till 10.40 a.m., and are not delivered in some parts of the town till after twelve o'clock, thus causing inconvenience to all classes of the community.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has directed that inquiry be made on the question of improving the postal service to Navan, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  ARTERIAL DRAINAGE OF IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to provide funds to enable the arterial drainage of Ireland being effectively carried out at an early date.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of arterial drainage is of importance, and a number of schemes for carrying it out have been brought to my notice. They will receive careful consideration, but I am not in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

  IRISH EMIGRATION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the total number of emigrants who left Irish ports last month was 8,565, as against 8,105 for the corresponding month of the previous year, and that 8,241 of these, or over 96 per cent., were bound for America; and, seeing that for the four months of the year now passed the total emigration from Ireland was 13,802, being an increase of 2,209 over the number for the same period in 1900, whether the Government intend to propose legislation calculated to keep the people in Ireland by making the occupiers the owners of the land, and whether the Government will consider the necessity of reducing taxation in Ireland in ratio with the reduction of population.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The percentage of emigrants from Irish ports to the United States in April was 90·5. The total number of emigrants in April and in the first four months of the present year was less for each period than in the corresponding periods of 1900. The decreases in May and the first five months of the present year are still more striking. I cannot discuss future legislation and taxation in reply to a question.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in May, 1900, a request was issued to the Irish Land Commission for the sale of the estate of F. C. Hawkes and others under the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896; that the Commission sent their valuer, who assessed 18½ years as the fair purchase value of the farms of John Cronin, Scart, Lower Aherla, county Cork, which the tenants were willing to give; that, when the case again came before the Land Commission for further consideration, it was represented that the purchase money, owing to the fall in the price of Government stock, was insufficient to redeem the superior interests, and that the head landlord would not accept less than twenty-seven years purchase of the
  298
  head rent; and, seeing that the Land Commission rejected the application for purchase, whether it is intended to introduce legislation under which, in circumstances such as these, the sale of the landlord's interests will be compulsorily ordered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It was shown to the satisfaction of the Land Judge that the sale of the holding at the price reported to him by the Land Commission would be insufficient to redeem the superior interests to which the holding was liable. The Land Judge cannot compulsorily redeem a superior interest without paying for it the full redemption price, which at the option of the owner of the superior interest may be fixed by arbitration. The reply to the last query is therefore in the negative.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman compensate the tenants for the time lost and money expended in connection with these abortive proceedings?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer this question, but I am in great hopes that no long period will elapse before I make a full statement on the subject.

  ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if a copy of the Return of 23rd May, touching the declarations of the heads of the States of Germany, United States, France, and Austro-Hungary has been forwarded to Lord Salisbury and to our various embassies, and if some effort in legislation will be made this session in order to assimilate the treatment of Roman Catholics under the Declaration to be made by the sovereign of this country

  299
  to that accorded to Roman Catholics by the Declaration made on the accession of new chiefs in the Protestant German Empire, and to that given to Protestants in Roman Catholic France and Austro-Hungary, even if it is impossible to adopt the equality of the United States.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will not be possible, as legislation is arranged this session, to comply with the wish of the hon. Gentleman. The Committee, to which I have more than once referred, has now been appointed in another place.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will it have a chance of sitting and reporting in the next few months?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot imagine that the investigation of the Committee will be of a very long character.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the names of the Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have been told them, but I have no note of them here. No doubt the information will be published to-morrow.

  MILITARY LOANS BILL.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Military Loans Bill this session; and, if so, what will be the nature of its proposals, and will it be brought forward at a period sufficiently in advance of the close of the session to ensure it receiving adequate consideration and discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is our intention to bring in a Bill such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I cannot give any undertaking as to the date on which it is to be brought in.

  WAR OFFICE REPORT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the War
  300
  Office Vote will be taken, and whether an opportunity will be afforded for full discussion of this Vote, seeing the important changes recommended in the Report of the recent Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any pledge such as the hon. Gentleman requires. I may remind him and the House that the Committee to which he refers was not a Committee appointed by this House, but a Committee appointed by my right hon. friend; and I venture to think that, until my right hon. friend has had an opportunity of considering the Report and how far it seems to him that its recommendations should be carried into effect, we ought not to have a discussion in this House.

  COST OF ENGLISH AND SCOTCH POLICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the Return respecting the cost of police in England and Scotland, notice for which stands on to-day's Paper.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member will find the information he desires in the annual Report of Police, England and Wales (Parliamentary Paper 181, of 1900), Tables VI.B and VII., and in the Annual Report of H.M. Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland (C. 548 of 1901), Tables I. and II.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House as to the course of business for next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The general business of next week will be the consideration of the Finance Bill in Committee. But it is extremely important in the interests of the Factory Bill that without any unnecessary delay it should be referred to a Grand Committee, and I hope the House will consent to give me that Bill at a relatively early period. I will put it down as the first Order on Monday, and I hope I may be allowed to get it by 7 o'clock.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take Irish Supply? Will he put down the Vote for the Land Judges Court early?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: When is it intended to take the Loan Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say when the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Loan Bill will be taken, but it will not be taken during the discussion in Committee on the Budget. Neither can I say what days will be allocated to Irish Supply, but I have always been anxious to meet the convenience of hon. Members on both sides in determining what Estimates shall be put down, and I shall not depart from that rule.
  Dr. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when he proposes to allocate another Friday evening to Scotch Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There must be another day for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates, but I cannot give an assurance when that day may most conveniently be fixed.

NAVAL WORKS AT GIBRALTAR.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the dangers to which works on the western side of the Rock of Gibraltar are exposed, His Majesty's Government have, since 30th March last, suspended the prosecution of any of the works on that side of the rock sanctioned by the Naval Works Act, 1896; and, if so, will he state what are the works the prosecution whereof has been so suspended.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that, as regards the works which are in process of construction, I understand that neither he nor anybody else has desired that they should be suspended.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESdissented.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is what I understood. As regards the works which have not been commenced in situ, the First Lord of the Admiralty has done all that is possible, short of breaking contracts, to prevent progress with the works pending the final decision of the Government. I may say that the final Report of the Committee, of which at one time my hon. friend was a Member, was only received on 15th May, and that since 15th May the Commander-in-Chief and the Senior Admiral on the Mediterranean Station have had to be consulted. So that there has been no long delay. The Government have nothing whatever to conceal from the House in this matter, and I hope that at an early date a full statement may be made on the subject to the House.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But can my right hon. friend not give me an assurance that these works will be stopped?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not as to the works in process of completion; but I have told my hon. friend that everything short of breaking contracts has been done with regard to the other works. I only ask my hon. friend to wait a few days until the Government are in a position to state to the House exactly how matters stand and the reasons which have induced them to adopt their policy.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I shall be obliged to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House. Perhaps I may ask my right hon. friend a question, the answer to which, I trust, will make it unnecessary for me to move the adjournment of the House. I think my right hon. friend has misapprehended me. The works referred to in my question were the works recommended for abandonment by the unanimous Report of the Committee on March 30th, whether they have been begun or not. No restriction was made at all in that Report. That being so, what I wish to ask is, Can my right hon. friend give me the assurance that all such works will be abandoned? That will content me for the moment. If not, can he say when the statement he has said he hopes to make will be made, and whether it will

303
be made in such circumstances as would give me an opportunity of raising the whole question in this House? If so, I will not move the adjournment of the House.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Cannot the whole matter be discussed on the Naval Works Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure whether it can.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It cannot.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a question of order on which I am not an authority, and I have not had an opportunity of making inquiries which would enable me to make even an unauthoritative statement upon the subject. As regards what has fallen from my hon. friend, I understand that as far as the works to which he refers go, they have been stopped as far as it is possible to stop them without breaking contracts. More than that cannot be done until the Government have given a decision upon the whole question. That decision will be come to, I believe, in a very few days, and then it will be the business of the Government to acquaint the House generally with the decision arrived at. My hon. friend goes on to ask when that statement will be made, and whether there will be an opportunity of discussing it. At all events, there will be the same opportunity which my hon. friend has to-night, but under much better circumstances.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There may be a blocking motion.
MR. DILLON: You blocked the farm-burning in South Africa motion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that is a contingency that is very likely to arise, but I think probably I shall be able to give the House an opportunity. At any rate, my hon. friend will benefit, because no discussion this evening can be operative. The House must wait for the final decision of the Government, and until we have come to a decision the question must be left very much
304
where it is. Therefore I hope my hon. friend will take the answer I have given him, at all events provisionally. I understand the question can be discussed on the Naval Works Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My right hon. friend has given me no assurance whatever as to when he will make this statement, or as to whether I shall have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does my hon. friend wish me to name the day and the hour? I have said it is under the consideration of the Government, and their decision will be given very shortly. Surely, that ought to satisfy my hon. friend.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will my right hon. friend undertake that I shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter? If I cannot get that undertaking I shall move the adjournment.
*MR. SPEAKER: I understand from what has been said that money for the works which the hon. Member wishes to be abandoned will have to be voted in the Naval Works Bill. In that case, of course, the hon. Member will have an opportunity of discussing it I only intervene because this point was referred to as raising a question of order.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think that will not meet the case. I should have a right to discuss the application of that money, but I wish to have an opportunity of discussing the method in which this Committee and its Report have been handled. If my right hon. friend would give me an assurance that I shall have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter, I will abstain from moving the adjournment. [Opposition cries of "Move."] If not, I will ask the permission of the House.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask my right hon. friend whether I understood him correctly that, in the event of this matter being precluded by one of these motions known as "blocking notices," he would take care that a full and legitimate

305
opportunity was afforded to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is perfectly plain to the House, after what I have said, that the Government have no desire to conceal anything from the House in this matter. We mean to make a clean breast of it, and the House will, of course, have an opportunity of discussing it.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have only one question to ask my right hon. friend. Will he undertake meantime to stop the works recommended for abandonment by the Committee on March 30th?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot undertake to break contracts. I think my hon. friend must feel that in making any such demand upon me he is making a most unreasonable demand.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESthen asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the conduct of His Majesty's Government in refusing to give any undertaking to suspend the prosecution of certain works on the western side of the Rock of Gibraltar which are exposed to serious dangers "; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen—
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Sir, I move that this House do now adjourn. I do so with great reluctance, and only because I have been refused anything like an assurance that an opportunity would be given for the discussion of this matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not so.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is my understanding of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made. As I understand him, he has not given me any assurance that I shall have, on a definite occasion, some opportunity of discussing this subject. I may be mis-
306
taken, but that is my belief. I regret very much to have to discuss the subject of Gibraltar at all in this House, and I only do it because of the danger involved and the delay imported into it. I regret especially to have to discuss it on a motion like this, and only do it on account of the great urgency of the matter. No doubt it is inconvenient in every way to ask the House to adjourn. It is a false issue, and does not represent the real question at issue. But it is an occasion which, in the wisdom of the House, has been provided for precisely such cases as this, where matters are being prosecuted, which there is no other way of putting an end to. When I have finished—I shall be short, and shall only make those remarks which will enable the House to understand the position of the subject—I think the House will see that this is a legitimate occasion on which to raise this matter.
In two words, my case is this. His Majesty's Government are prosecuting, contrary to the unanimous Report of a Committee appointed by themselves, works which that Committee recommended on 30th March should be abandoned. There was no question in that Report whether the works were begun or not begun. They were all begun. There is no question of the breaking of contracts, because I shall show the House that the contracts contain a provision enabling the Government to abandon any part of the work. My belief is that the Government are not conscious of the danger involved in these works, or of the urgency of stopping them, not for want of information of the most serious and disquieting character, not from want of the Report of the Committee, but I fear for the want, which has distinguished them more than once, of understanding the full importance of the information they had in their possession. I must go over a short history to make the House understand the matter. The House will remember that in 1895 under the late Government, a proposal was made to build at Gibraltar certain moles for torpedo defence, and one dock, at a cost of a million and a half. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway and a late Member of the House, Captain Bethell, did at the time object, on the ground that

307
since guns had obtained a range of 10,000 yards, such works would be exposed to fire from the land. I supported the scheme, but if I had known then, as I know now, that Sir Andrew Clarke had reported against any such scheme, and that Major-General Crease and Colonel Buckle had also reported against it, I should have hesitated. But I did not hesitate because I did not then know what I have learned since. All the import and the meaning of the thing was at the time hidden. In 1896–97 the great mistake was made. Mr. Goschen came down to the House and proposed a much more ambitious scheme than that proposed by his predecessor. He proposed to increase the moles, and also to increase the number of docks from one to three, and to increase the expenditure from one and a half millions to four millions. I maintained then that was a misapplication of public money, and had I then known what I know now I should have exhausted every means at my disposal to defeat that scheme. But I did not know, and none of us knew what we know now. What we did not know was that such heavy guns could be used without forts, embrasures, or emplacements, and moved about, and that if they were fired with smokeless powder they could not be located. We have since learnt that in 1889 from the Boers.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Every fortress in the Mediterranean is so supplied.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Everybody did not know in 1896 that heavy guns, six-inch guns, could be moved about; had become mobile and invisible; but I think it is only reasonable to say that when this knowledge was acquired in 1899 that the Government should in 1900 have reconsidered the situation at Gibraltar by the light of these new facts, should have suspended these works, and not have waited for me to bring this matter to their attention. At that time only £1,000,000 had been spent upon these works; now £2,000,000 have been spent, and for the most part have been ill spent. In that remark I do not intend to include the moles, which I think are defensible. I am dealing now only with certain works which were recommended by the Com-
308
mittee of which I was a member to be abandoned, which were not abandoned, and which are being continued to this day. I became anxious about this matter last autumn. In November I wrote a letter to The Times. On 10th December I put a question in this House. At the same time I wrote privately to the First Lord of the Treasury. I also wrote to and saw the First Lord of the Admiralty, and appealed to him to inquire as to the dangers of the works on the western side, and as to the possibility of making a harbour on the eastern side, and to suspend the works then being carried on on the western side until those inquiries were made. That was the burden of my appeal then, and that is the burden of my appeal now, but the reply was always the same. My appeals for inquiry and suspension were rejected, and the works were continued. So impressed was I that I went out to Gibraltar in January last, and what I heard in Gibraltar and Spain impressed me still more, and I came back more than ever convinced of the danger of the works on the western side. Then once again I appealed to the Government to stop the works, and once again did they refuse, and then, and only then, did I come to this House and to the public. I wrote the pamphlet "Gibraltar a National Danger," in which I pointed out the danger involved on the western side; I alleged that the harbour and works on that side would be untenable against fire from the Spanish land, and that in order to secure them it would be necessary to occupy Spanish territory with a separate army. I pointed out that the alleged impossibility of making a harbour on the eastern side did not exist, and that it was possible and desirable to make it; but all I contended for was inquiry and suspension of the work on the western side. My motion upon the subject came on on the 25th of February, and the First Lord of the Treasury, with complimentary allusions to myself, to which I am little accustomed from that bench, accepted my motion, and asked me to join the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman accepted it to my great relief, because then as now I did not desire to discuss that subject in this House. I

309
have throughout sought to avoid discussion in this House, and I withdrew my motion with the greatest possible pleasure. I doubted indeed whether I ought to join the Committee, but after the support which I had received from the House I thought it was my duty to return to Gibraltar and do what I could to assist in solving the problem, aad the next day, therefore, I accepted the offer of the Government to serve on the Committee.
After I had joined that Committee something strange happened which made me fear that the Committee might prove abortive, and I might have to come back to this country after the inquiry was over with nothing done and no result to show, and under those circumstances I thought it proper to reserve my right to make, in such an event, the statement which I owed to this House. Now we have been told continually that this was no Committee. But it has always been called a Committee; it was called a Committee by the First Lord of the Admiralty when I was asked to join it; then it was said there was to be no reference, but there has been a reference. The First Lord of the Admiralty explained that he gave the Committee six questions to reply to; that amounted to a reference, and the reply to those six questions is in fact the Report of the Committee. I again went to Gibraltar, and the men with whom I was associated there were most distinguished men; they were Admiral Sir Harry Rawson, the Commander of the Channel Fleet, General Sir William Nicholson, and Mr. Mathews, of the firm of Coode and Mathews, a man most eminent in his profession, and whose firm has long had relations with the Government. It is not my decision which I am now going to present to the House, but the decision of those three experts based upon the information which we received at Gibraltar. For ten days we did most strenuous work. Although I felt the want of certain necessary documents for which I had applied, but which I have never received, yet what we heard out there and ascertained was enough. We found that, in the opinion of the highest military authorities, occupying most important positions which gave them a most direct right to speak with authority
310
beyond all other men on those points, every danger which I alleged was admitted, nay, asserted to exist. The only difference between the statements in my pamphlet and the views of these military experts was that they went a great deal further than I had ventured to go. They admitted that the western side was untenable from fire to which no reply could be made, and also that the only way of protecting these works on the western side of Gibraltar was by occupying Spanish territory by a large separate army of, as I judged, at least 30,000 or 40,000 men; the only difference between us was that they put the territory to be occupied at a larger area than I. What these authorities said was, indeed not new. It was already published by myself in my pamphlet. But they confirmed it with greater emphasis and more authority.
Strong things had been said of me by the Ministerial press. It was said I was a vain alarmist. It has been proved that I am nothing of the kind. It was said that I quarrelled with the Committee, but the evidence of one of that Committee was that he had seen few Committees where there was so little disagreement. We came to a unanimous conclusion on the 30th of March; we replied to the six questions in unequivocal terms, and, in addition, Admiral Rawson sent home a personal private Report to the Admiralty, which was exactly the same in effect, but which was more amplified and contained more details. It would be obviously quite impossible to lay Sir Harry Rawson's Report upon the Table, but it is possible to lay the Report of the whole Committee embodied in the answers to the six questions asked of the Committee, and they ought to be, and sooner or later must be laid before the House. There is nothing in them which, in my opinion, could injure the public service. I shall not state what the exact character of the Report is; I have said that it was unanimous, and the House knows my views about Gibraltar, and they know the strenuous way in which I have held to that opinion, and they may judge what the character of that Report was when I say that I agreed not only to the recommendations, but to every word of that Report, and that

311
I adhere to that Report. I will give the answer to one question of that Report. We unanimously recommended that dock No. 2 on the western side should be abandoned, that one-third of the workshops on the same side should be abandoned, and that all the store houses there should be abandoned. I tell the House that because it is on that article of the Report that I found my motion. It is because that recommendation has not been carried out, in spite of all my representations, because, after a long official correspondence, I have been unable to get it carried out, and because I have come to the conclusion that the Government do not mean to abandon the works which were recommended to be abandoned, but are still continuing them, and are thus adding to the dangers already existing at Gibraltar, that I have felt forced to make my motion to-day.
The House may be told that if these works are discontinued, as recommended by the Committee, only a small sum will be saved. Well, the sum that could be saved by abandoning the works has according to the official view persistently decreased ever since the first time I went away from England. At first it was estimated that £900,000 would be saved; when I left Gibraltar it was put at £500,000; and now it is said to be £300,000. But £300,000 is not a small sum, and, even if it were, it is not so much the sum that I wish to save as the extra risk that is incurred by continuing the works. Every stone that is added to those works, every sovereign paid for them, adds to the dangers which are being built up around Gibraltar. It may also be said, as has indeed been suggested already, that to stop these works would be to break the contract. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the contract. Clause 78 of the contract states that "the work will be carried out and paid for by measurement," and Article 50 declares that "if the Lords of the Admiralty shall at any time think fit to make any alterations in addition to, or to omit or abandon any part of the works, they shall be at liberty to do so"; and Article 83 provides that "should the work or any part of it be altered, extended, or diminished, or
312
should any item of the work described and provided for in the schedule of prices be omitted, so that a greater or less quantity of any particular class of work, material, or labour be executed as required, the same rates shall apply, and such quantity or such work or class of work only as is actually executed or supplied will be paid for at the rates of the schedule of prices, and the contractor shall not be entitled to any additional compensation on account of such alteration, extension, omission or diminution." It is perfectly plain that the Government felt, as prudent men would feel under such circumstances, that they might at some time require to abandon some part of the work, and that they retained the power to do so, and the contractor has expressly agreed that he should not be therefore entitled to compensation. Consequently the answer to the recommendations of the Committee that they would involve breach of contract falls completely to the ground. The Report of the Committee answered five out of the six questions. The sixth dealt only with figures which one of the Committee alone, the engineer, could answer, and since the Committee returned to London that question also has been answered by the engineer.
As I have said, on the 30th of March we arrived at a unanimous conclusion. Each one of the answers sent home from Gibraltar as our Report was complete, absolute, exhaustive, definite, and final, and, having reached that point, I was perfectly satisfied, and I returned convinced that the Government, with the absolutely unanimous report of such a Committee before it, would not hesitate to act immediately upon it. I understood that the whole matter dealt with by the Committee must necessarily come before the whole Cabinet, and I felt that the decision upon it must necessarily be the decision of the Government as a whole, and that to arrive at that decision would no doubt take time. The House can have no idea of the extreme gravity of the dangers involved. The Government have an idea, but the House has not; but I assure the House they are very grave indeed. I felt that the final decision of the Government must take time. But surely the essential thing was to act forthwith on the

313
recommendation of the Committee by at once suspending the works they had recommended to be abandoned. To continue them is positively to anticipate, forestall, and coerce the Cabinet in their decision. It places upon the Cabinet the weight of a decided fact, and renders it more difficult—impossible, perhaps—for them to come to an unfettered decision. That is where the urgency arises. If I could have obtained an assurance that these particular works would be abandoned or were suspended, I would not have come before the House with this motion to-day. That is my case. But I ought to add a word. No question ever arose as to the adequacy or finality of the Report of 30th March until some time after the Committee had returned to London. On the return of the Committee to London the official members of the Committee communicated with their official friends and superiors, and came possibly under official influence. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Well, perhaps it was not so, but at any rate the Committee returned to London, where they held two or three meetings to consider matters not immediately referred to in the questions put to them. What was my surprise, when, after some of their meetings had been held, I received a proposal to vary and rewrite the Report. It was proposed to me to withdraw some of the recommendations made in the unanimous Report of the 30th of March, to introduce other recommendations in their place, and, finally—most irrelevantly in my opinion—to justify the extension of the work made in 1896 and 1897, and the author of that extension, to which, as I believe, the major part of the dangers at Gibraltar are to be attributed. That seemed to me to be a proposal which amounted to trifling with an important matter. It was an invitation to the Committee and to myself to stultify ourselves. It seemed to me a humiliating proposal, and I not only would not agree to it, but I would not entertain it for a moment, and I at once resigned my position on the Committee. I do not know what remains of the Committee now. [Laughter.] I left three. I trust the House will not make this a laughing matter. It may be that one or possibly two other members have left it. I do not know. That is why I
314
made that remark. Now I heard the term "final Report" used. What is the final Report? If the final Report be some document drawn up by the three gentlemen—or a lesser number—no doubt much more distinguished and more capable than I am—who have remained on the Committee—[" No, no."]—I do not for a moment pretend to compete with them in the qualities required for the consideration of this matter, but they are not more competent than I am to decide whether a man ought to alter a Report after he has made it—I say that if it be that those gentlemen who remained on the Committee have made a Report which agrees with the Report they agreed with me in making at Gibraltar, well and good; there is nothing to be said. But if they have made a Report such as was suggested to me, varying and altering the previous Report, and thus making an entirely new Report of it, then it seems to me that such a document is of no value and can have no effect, being, as it is, a contradiction of the Report made by those very three gentlemen—if they be three—plus the fourth at Gibraltar. I do not know if I require any justification for the urgency and persistency with which I have brought this matter forward. I hope not. I may have mistaken the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He thinks he did give me a definite promise of an opportunity for discussion. I thought he did not. I can assure him and the House that if he gives me in the course of this discussion a promise that the Report will be carried out, I will at once withdraw my motion. I do not know whether the House understood the right hon. Gentleman to definitely promise a discussion. ["No."] I certainly did not, and I can assure the House that I have brought forward this proposal with great regret. It has pleased the Ministerial press to insinuate that my representations were exaggerated, but they have been more than confirmed by the Committee itself, and by important Reports of the highest possible authorities. Those Reports are in the possession of His Majesty's Government. It has been insinuated that I could not agree with the Members of the Committee but the House knows that up to the time the Report was made I agreed with them as well as any man could agree

315
with his colleagues on a Committee. We were unanimous, and it is only since the proposal to vary the Report that I have come to a breach. It has pleased His Majesty's Government to treat this matter sometimes with pleasantry, and me with attempts at ridicule. I have been called a corsair, and I am proud of the name. A corsair is a privateer, and a privateer is a man who fights the public battles at his own cost and charges, and very often to his own great loss.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): A corsair is a pirate.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The Civil Lord of the Admiralty says that a corsair is a pirate; he therein shows his competency to be anything but a Civil Lord of the Admiralty. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the difference between a corsair and a pirate is the same as that between a special policeman and a burglar; and if he does not understand that, let me commend him to the works on international law. I am not displeased at being called a corsair, or with the other allusions of a more or less humorous and disagreeable character which have been made to myself. What I do complain of is that this matter should be treated as trivial, and of no importance or urgency; that the one recommendation of the Committee which, if acted upon at all, required to be acted upon at once, has not been acted upon; and that up to this moment I have not been able to get any assurance that it will be. I ask for the communication to the House of the Report of the Committee. Again I say it could be perfectly well communicated—every word of it—without any public inconvenience whatever. If His Majesty's Government refuse to communicate that Report, they will compel the House, through lack of information, to acquiesce in the continuance of works in regard to which I am sure the House would not so acquiesce if they had the Report before them. That is the situation. If the Report were produced we should see whether the House would agree to continue the works. I am certain they would not. In the meantime it is not right, it is not respectful to the Committee,
316
it is not fair to the Cabinet, which will have to decide this question, to continue works which are of so dangerous and serious a nature.
I have other strange matters which. I might bring before the House in, connection with the conduct of this Committee, but I would rather not. This matter arose in Parliament; a motion was made in this House, and withdrawn on condition of this Committee being appointed. Parliament therefore has a right to information, and it seemed to me that it was my duty to give some account of my conduct, and of the progress of the work I had undertaken. I have given that account to-night so far as I have been forced, but I have not told all. I have told only what was absolutely necessary. I have given some part of the story to-night, not because I was indisposed to keep the whole of it locked in my own breast, but only because I have been more and more impressed with the urgency of the necessity of the Government stopping these works. I am not prepared to keep Gibraltar at the pleasure of any Power or Powers. I cannot acquiesce in a policy which involves that; I am not prepared to hold it under conditions which cause it to be not strong enough to protect itself without the aid of a separate army sent out from England. I am not prepared, therefore, to acquiesce in the continuance of works every brick of which helps the creation of that situation and increases the danger. Observe how the plot is thickening. Strange things are going on in Morocco, in regard to which Gibraltar is a most potent element, and may become the most important factor. Strange deficiencies and omissions, if we may believe the Pall Mall Gazette, that most subservient of Government organs—are occurring in connection with the Mediterranean Fleet, which also is a factor that cannot be left out of sight, nor Gibraltar in connection with it. Finally, strange things are happening on the Continent of Europe which, if this unhappy war should not soon come to an end, may give us cause to think of other things even than sending reinforcements to Lord Kitchener. A situation is arising, or has arisen, which makes it very necessary to deal with this matter I am perfectly certain the Government

317
mean well. But many a Government has meant well which has ruined an Empire. I am confident that the Government do not even now appreciate the great urgency of this matter or the imminence of the dangers to which Gibraltar is exposed. We are silently drifting into a position which may make it impossible to diminish these dangers and to afford an adequate remedy for the them. The Government refuse information to the House—
MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman will promise to communicate the Report of the Committee to the House, I will at once sit down. I know perfectly well the decision the House and the country would come to if they had that Report. I make this appeal to His Majesty's Government. I know a certain amount of anger has been aroused over this matter, but I repeat that it is only because, rightly or wrongly, I think I am left without any other opportunity, that I have taken this course. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to believe that. I appeal to His Majesty's Government to stop these particular specified works recommended for abandonment. It is not a question of those which are begun and those which are not begun. The Committee definitely recommended their; abandonment whether begun or not. In reality they are all begun, and were when the final contracts were made, I believe, in 1898, and the Committee drew no distinction. If my appeal to His Majesty's Government fails, I shall appeal to this House. If my appeal here fails, I shall appeal, so far as my humble capacities allow me, to the public at large. Of course, I shall be beaten to-night; I may fail here, I may fail outside; but at any rate I shall feel that I have done my duty, that I have done my best to stop the works, and to procure such remedy as could still be found for the danger which now may be ignored, but which I am perfectly certain in the future will be only too bitterly recognised. I have thought it my duty to persevere with this matter up to now. I have never come to this House without
318
previously exhausting every means in my power in the endeavour to procure the doing of that which I consider necessary. I did so before I made my motion in February. I have done so now. Now, as then, it is only because His Majesty's Government leave me without any hope of their doing the thing that I hold to be most urgently necessary that I appeal to the House. Whatever happens, I cannot leave this question. I shall feel it my duty to exhaust every means to stop these works which perpetuate and increase the vulnerability of Gibraltar, make it a temptation and a bait to the enemies of England, and transform it from a defence and a strength into a snare and a danger to the Empire. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman had told us, not once but many times, in the course of the speech which he has just delivered, that he rises with the greatest reluctance, that he speaks very much against the grain, and that nothing but the coercing sense of public duty has induced him to break silence at the present moment. Never did anyone do violence to his own inclination in a worse cause than my hon. friend. ["Oh!"] I do not know whether most to regret the occasion on which he has thought fit to make the speech to which we have listened, or the substance of a great part of that speech. As regards the occasion, what has my hon. friend done? He knows that he has forced on this debate at a time when the Government have not, and could not have, had time to come to a final decision on this most important question. ["Why?"] He knows that there has been no undue delay in coming to that decision, and I have explained to the House the dates which amply prove that proposition. The final Report of this Committee was only given to the Admiralty on the 15th of last month. It had to be considered not only by the First Lord of the Admiralty, but by the Board of Admiralty, and by the military and naval heads of the services at Gibraltar and in the Mediter-

319
ranean. I told my hon. friend and the House, in the plainest language, that that decision had not been come to, but that it was ripe, and that a very few hours or days would elapse before we should be in a position to tell the House exactly where we stood in this matter. But my hon. friend was bursting with his speech. He could not restrain himself even for the few days for which I asked him to wait. He must needs force this debate on us at a time most inconvenient to the House—["No."]—for the discussion of this great problem—not inconvenient with regard to the business which we have to deal with this evening, important as that business is, but it is most inconvenient for the House to be asked to discuss a question of Imperial policy like this before the Government have or could have come to the decision which it will be their business to communicate to the House and on which the House will have to pronounce.
COLONEL NOLAN: There have been five years.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not five years, or even weeks, since the Committee reported. I will not say that this is a misuse of the forms of the House; but it is a deplorable exercise of those forms for my hon. friend to have taken this step. Before leaving this part of the subject, let me point out that this question is not merely one of great military and naval importance. It is one which involves diplomatic considerations of the gravest delicacy. And when my hon. friend volunteers statements about invasions of friendly territory, and of what might happen in this or that event, I think it deplorable—nothing less than deplorable—that an hon. Member who is so well acquainted with the difficulties of the position should allow himself to start topics and to raise controversies of the kind which I have briefly indicated, and on which I shall not say another word. Of what does my hon. friend complain? He complains that in regard to certain works which he does not desire to see completed—[Opposition cries of "The Committee"]—at all events, works which
320
he does not desire to see completed—that is not an inaccurate statement—the Government have not given a pledge that they shall be abandoned. That is perfectly true. We have not given any such pledge, and I do not mean to give any such pledge, or hint at any such pledge this afternoon. But what we have done is this. The works to which the Interim Report referred to by my hon. friend—
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:: Interim Report?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will deal with that later. What we have done is that the expenditure upon the works which the Interim Report said should be abandoned has been stopped, so far as it could possibly be stopped. An arrangement has been come to with the contractor by which he shall not spend a single further shilling upon them unless he is out of pocket by abstaining from doing so. More than that could not possibly be done without breaking the contract. "Why do not you break the contract?" is the answer of my hon. friend, and he quotes certain clauses from the contract indicating in his opinion that under them the works could be abandoned.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas understood to say that the contract would still subsist as regarded the remainder of the works, which would be paid for at the same price, but the Government would have power to omit any portion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not contest that statement at all, but what my hon. friend has not realised thoroughly is that to abandon those works—to break the contract so far as those works are concerned—before we have finally decided upon that policy, would be absolutely suicidal, because a great deal of money has already been spent upon them. It is perfectly true that the money has not been largely spent in situ, but immense sums have been spent in making the necessary preliminary arrangements, purchasing

321
quarries, collecting plant, and so on, before the works could be undertaken. To break the contract as regards those works would simply mean that in order to save the £300,000 which my hon. friend speaks of, a very much larger sum would have to be thrown into the sea; for a very much larger sum than £300,000 has already been spent indirectly upon them. To sacrifice this sum in order to save £300,000 may be perfectly right if the policy of abandoning these works is finally decided upon; but to do so before we have decided on abandonment is a course which no sane Government could possibly pursue. And what position would the Board of Admiralty be in if it broke the contract before the decision of the Government had been come to upon this great military and strategic question; or if the Government decided, as very likely they may, that the works should be proceeded with? Surely as much has been done as can be done in the circumstances when we have come to an arrangement with the contractor by which not a shilling is to be spent upon these works except so far as may be necessary to prevent the contractor's being out of pocket. As I am on the subject of the contract, I may incidentally remark that I believe my hon. friend is entirely wrong when he says that only one million had been spent on these works in 1900. Only a million had been paid, but a great deal more had been spent by the contractor, who would finally have to be reimbursed in the ordinary course for the expenditure he had incurred.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I relied upon the Return presented to the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Did that Return say how much had been spent?
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The Return gives the amount of money spent up to the 31st March, 1900, and the amount is £1,194,453.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is perfectly true. That is the amount of money spent by the Government in paying the contractor. It does not repre-
322
sent the amount which at the termination of the contract, or at a later stage of it, would have to be spent and will be spent by the Government with respect to work carried out before 31st March, 1900. My hon. friend had not sufficiently considered the character of those contracts when he hazarded that statement to the House.
Now, Sir, I leave the question of suspending further work upon docks, shops, and sheds, and I come to a point which my hon. friend has raised about the Report. I used the phrase "Interim Report," which the hon. gentleman opposite seemed surprised to hear. He may well have been surprised, for never once did the words "Interim Report" fall from my hon. friend in the whole course of his speech. What is the view which any hon. Gentleman must have carried away from this debate if he had only listened to the version given of this Report by my hon. friend? I believe the impression which he would have carried away would have been this—that the four gentlemen, the distinguished engineer, the distinguished sailor, the distinguished soldier, and the no less distinguished Member of Parliament who went out to investigate matters at Gibraitar had come to a unanimous and final decision upon this question; that, having come to that unanimous and final decision, they returned borne, and the soldier, sailor, and engineer were got at—to put it mildly—by the Admiralty; but the impeccable honesty, the sterling, solid, self-controlled Member of Parliament ["Oh"] resisted all those official blandishments and declined to submit to a revision of the Report, which up to that point had been considered as final. That would be the view taken away by any gentleman of this transaction. But that view is entirely inaccurate. The original Report was an Interim Report. I think the word "Interim" occurs in it.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Report and see if he can find that word?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report is an Interim Report. [Opposition cries of "No, no," and "Read it."] There are

323
two, or certainly there was one, of the questions which the Committee did not attempt to answer, which they could not answer on the spot, which they had to come home in order to have the information to answer, and which had necessarily an important bearing upon all the other questions that had been answered. What were those questions which were not answered in the Interim Report? They were two questions of great importance. One, the least important, was as to the cost of the works on the eastern side of Gibraltar; and the other, which was a much more important question, was as to the time it would take to complete these works. My hon. friend has told us in the course of his speech that he thinks undefended docks better than no docks, and he dwelt in forcible language on the immediate necessity of having at Gibraltar a place where our ships may refit, and which may serve all the purposes in time of peace, as in time of war, which are served by a great naval base like Malta. Supposing that the works on the eastern side of Gibraltar would take ten years—no human being would put them at less than ten years—I do not know whether my hon. friend has any information on that point, as he left the Committee before they entered upon that part of the investigation—
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg your pardon. The question of estimated cost and estimated time had been dealt with. The estimated period was previously put at twenty-five years, but the engineer member of the Committee put it at eight years, plus two years preparations at the Admiralty.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not believe that anyone would seriously put the period below ten years. Therefore, the policy of the Interim Report was to keep us with an incomplete base at Gibraltar for the purpose of saving £300,000. I daresay the question of Morocco may be settled in ten years. A good deal happens in ten years, and all the mysterious rumours to which my hon. friend refers may have given place to other rumours, and to other rumours again, and there may be a succession of rumours which
324
may fall the history or the next ten years. Yet we are to wait ten years for the dock which my hon. friend desires to have. That is his policy, the precious policy which he presses upon the House. That is his mode of meeting pressing national needs and looking after national interests. This necessity is so great that he must needs move the adjournment of the House a week before the Government can come forward and make their statement on this question. I cannot congratulate my hon. friend upon the substance of the policy which he would press upon our attention. But there was something worse in my hon. friend's speech than a mistake in policy. There was an attack upon the honour of those colleagues with whom he tells us he worked so well. [Cries of "Oh" and Ministerial cheers.] I call it an attack upon their honour. I do not know what views on that delicate subject are held by hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me, but I emphatically call it an attack upon their honour to say that they came to a decision at Gibraltar, and that when they came home, and official influence was brought to bear on them, they modified that decision.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I never said that.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If my hon. friend did not mean that by his insinuation, what did he mean?
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I neither said it nor insinuated it. I do not know what decision those three gentlemen may have come to, but I know what decision was proposed to me.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Anybody who heard that part of my hon. friend's speech in which he described the reasons which induced him to leave the Committee; anybody who heard that part of his speech in which he said he would be humiliated and insulted if he remained on the Committee; anybody who remembers that part of his speech in which be suggested that the other members of the Committee must have felt themselves humiliated had they stayed on the Committee; anybody who heard

325
the cheers with which those assertions were met on the other side of the House, can have no doubt, at all events, that there was an attack upon the honour of these gentlemen and an insinuation which I regret my hon. friend should ever have made against those with whom he tells us he lived in the closest amity and agreement through all their investigation at Gibraltar. I think it a deplorable suggestion on my hon. friend's part. I trust that, if this matter comes up again, he will not repeat it. I have nothing more to say upon the subject except to tell the House that the very last thing the Government desire to do is to have any secrets from them in this matter. We are perfectly conscious that the whole subject is surrounded not merely with military and naval difficulties, but with other difficulties, which make it very unfit in some respects for public discussion within these walls; and it is a fact that in the Reports which have been made there are matters which I think ought not to be brought before public attention at all. I think my hon. friend would agree to that. But as regards the substance of those Reports, as regards the main line of consideration which should govern the decision of the Government
and of this House in dealing with this question, there is not the slightest desire, and there never has been, to have secrets or concealment from the House of Commons at all. I am sorry that this premature and necessarily incomplete debate has been forced on by the rash action of my hon. friend; but as it has been forced on, I hope I have indicated to the House with sufficient clearness that there is not the slightest basis for the charge against the Government that they are endeavouring to conceal anything; that there is no foundation for the suggestion that in continuing these works we have been either committing the House or the country to a costly and unnecessary policy; and, above all, there is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that the three distinguished men, once colleagues of my hon. friend, have done anything unworthy of their great reputation or which should make the opinion they give to the House and the whole country less worthy of respect.
Question put
The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 216. (Division List No, 251.)

AYES.

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cogan, Denis J.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Craig, Robert Hunter

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

Ambrose, Robert

Crean, Eugene

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Frederick John

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Cullinan, J.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy, Patrick James

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Delany, William

Labouchere, Henry

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dillon, John

Lambert, George

Bell, Richard

Donelan, Captain A.

Langley, Batty

Black, Alexander William

Doogan, P. C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Blake, Edward

Duffy, William J.

Leamy, Edmund

Boland, John

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lewis, John Herbert

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dunn, Sir William

Lloyd-George, David

Boyle, James

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Emmott, Alfred

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Brigg, John

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Lundon, W.

Broadhurst, Henry

Fenwick, Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Field, William

M'Crae, George

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Dermott, Patrick

Burke, E. Haviland-

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

M'Govern, T.

Burns, John

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Burt, Thomas

Gilhooly, James

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Caine, William Sproston

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Caldwell, James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Minch, Matthew

Cameron, Robert

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mooney, John J.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Moulton, John Fletcher

Cawley, Frederick

Hammond, John

Murnaghan, George

Channing, Francis Allston

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Norman, Henry

Price, Robert John

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Priestley, Arthur

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rea, Russell

Wallace, Robert

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

Reddy, M.

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Weir, James Galloway

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

Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Connor, Jamos (Wicklow, W

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

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

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Dowd, John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

O'Malley, William

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.).

O'Mara, James

Soares, Ernest J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

Sullivan, Donal

Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. M'Kenna.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cranborne, Viscount

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Helder, Augustus

Aird, Sir John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Henderson, Alexander

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cust, Henry John C.

Hogg, Lindsay

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Arrol, Sir William

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Austen, Sir John

Doughty, George

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

Bain, Col. James Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury).

Baird, John George Alexander

Duke, Henry Edward

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Balcarres, Lord

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Keswick, William

Baldwin, Alfred

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kimber, Henry

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

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

Knowles, Lees

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch.)

Finch, George H.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Banbury, Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Law, Andrew Bonar

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fisher, William Hayes

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

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

Fison, Frederick William

Lawson, John Grant

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

Bigwood, James

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S)

Bousfield, William Robert

Forster, Henry William

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (Cityo'Lond.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr

Brymer, William Ernest

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Macdona, John Cumming

Butcher, John George

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Maconochie, A. W.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanc.)

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

M'lver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gretton, John

Majendie, James A. H.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Groves, James Grimble

Malcolm, Ian

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'

Hain, Edward

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Chapman, Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

Milton, Viscount

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

Mitchell, William

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Morrell, George Herbert

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Thornton, Percy M.

Morrison, James Archibald

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Round, James

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Mount, William Arthur

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Muntz, Philip A.

Russell, T. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Walker, Col. William Hall

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Samuel, Harry S (Limehouse)

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney

Nicholson, William Graham

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.

Webb, Colonel William Geo.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Seton-Karr, Henry

Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Parkes, Ebenezer

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Penn, John

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Percy, Earl

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Pierpoint, Robert

Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

Wilson-Todd, Wm H. (Yorks.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Spear, John Ward

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wylie, Alexander

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggort

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Purvis, Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Quilter, Sir Curhbert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

TELLERS FOF THE NOES.—

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stroyan, John

Sir William Walrond and

Rensbaw, Charles Bine

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Mr. Anstruther.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Question put, and agreed to.

NEW BILLS.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk): I wish to ask the leave of the House to introduce a very short Bill to remove certain inequalities with respect to districts for registration purposes, and the appointment of superintendent registrars of births and deaths in certain unions. The Government are of opinion, and I think the House will also be of opinion, that the time has now arrived for reconsidering the temporary arrangement established many years ago with regard to superintendent registrars. I think it is a Bill which will provoke no opposition in any part of the House.
  Bill to amend the Law with respect to districts for registration purposes, and the appointment of Superintendent Registrars of Births and Deaths in certain unions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to districts for registration purposes, and the appointment of Superintendent Regis-
  330
  trars of Births and Deaths in certainunions," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bilk 208.]

  COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Acts of the Colonial Legislatures of New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia. Grave doubts have arisen as to whether these Acts ought not to have been preserved, and it is now desired that they should be confirmed by the Imperial Legislature.
  Bill to confirm certain Acts of Colonial Legislatures, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Solicitor General.

  COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  "To confirm certain Acts of Colonial Legislatures," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 209.]

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on question (12th June), "That

  331
  Mr. Stuart Wortley be one other Member of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords on Queen Anne's Bounty Board."
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, "That three be the quorum."—(Sir William Walrond.)

  STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
  Ordered, That Sir Edgar Vincent be added to the Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)

SUPPLY [10TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [10TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1901–2.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £132,328, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including a Grant-in-Aid."
    *DR. MACNAMARAsaid he desired to move the reduction which stood in his name in order to stimulate the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided into a little greater activity in respect to the important matter of workmen's trains. This was a thrice told tale in the House, and his apology for repeating it must be the extreme urgency and importance of the matter. Under the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, it became incumbent upon railway companies to make suitable and adequate provision for supplying work-
    332
    men's tickets at reasonable fares, and in consideration of that they were to receive the remission of the whole passenger duty on fares up to a penny a mile, and a substantial portion of the passenger duty at a lower rate. The Act made it obligatory that all companies should provide sufficient workmen's trains for working men going to and from their work at such fares and such times after six o'clock in the evening and before eight o'clock in the morning as appeared to be reasonable. He did not suggest that the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 had failed, because the contrary was the fact. He found that there arrived at the London termini of the various railway companies in the year before the passing of the Cheap Trains Act about 8,000,000 working people using workmen's tickets. In the year 1896 that total had increased to 31,000,000. Therefore the Act has been a substantial boon to the working classes. There had, however, been no uniformity in the practice of the great railway companies in issuing workmen's tickets. The Great Eastern Railway Company in the year 1882 issued 2,500,000 workmen's tickets or their equivalent. In 1896 that total had increased by 100 per cent., for in that year they issued no less than 5,000,000 workmen's tickets. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, about which the House heard something on Tuesday last, issued 1,200,000 workmen's tickets in 1882, but in 1896 that total had only increased to 1,700,000. The companies themselves appeared to have made a very good thing out of the Cheap Trains Act. He gathered from The Times report of 28th January, 1891, that the then chairman of the Great Eastern Railway Company frankly admitted that the workmen's trains were a source of considerable profit to the company if they could run them at all full. He said that if they could carry 500 workmen in a train they could do very well by the process, and in consideration of these cheap tickets they also got a remission of the passenger duty. Since the year 1883 that remission of passenger duty had meant to the railway companies a new income of not less than £10,000,000, and so far as the railways which had their termini in London were concerned they had

    333
    actually received £8,000,000 in remission of passenger duty.
    He had two complaints to make upon this Vote, and he would confine himself absolutely to this question of cheap trains. His first complaint was that the Board of Trade was not active enough in keeping the companies up to the mark in their supply of cheap trains, and the Royal Commission upon the Housing of the Working Classes which sat in 1885 was strongly of that opinion. They urged that the Board of Trade should take the initiative, and not wait for complaints. That was two years after the passing of the Act, and a great many things had happened since. He thought hon. Members would agree with him that the housing question was very closely connected with the subject of cheap trains in great industrial centres like London. At the present time, eighteen years after the passing of the Cheap Trains Act, the Midland Railway Company only gave the people five workmen's trains per day, the London and North Western eleven, and the Great Northern eleven; but the Great Eastern provided no fewer than 104 workmen's trains. The immediate result of this differentiation of policy on the part of the Great Eastern Company was to create a new overcrowding problem in the districts on its lines. The eleven workmen's trains per day given by the London and North Western and the Great Northern Railway Companies, when contrasted with the 104 trains per day given by the Great Eastern Company, did not suggest to him that the Board of Trade was doing all that it ought to do to stimulate railway companies to carry out their obligations. The Royal Commission to which he had alluded found that it was the duty of the Board of Trade to see that the fullest benefits were secured to the working classes under the Cheap Trains Act.
    Another important feature of this question was the fares which were exacted from the working classes, more particularly in London. For a return journey of 10¾ miles each way, the Great Eastern Company charged a fare of 2d. the North London Company 2d. for a return journey of eight miles, and the Metropolitan and Central Electric Railway seven miles each way for 2d. But the London and North Western, the
    334
    Midland, the Great Northern, the London and South Western, and the Great. Western charged workmen from two to four times the fares levied by the other companies. He would give them a specific instance. A man could travel 10¾ miles out from London on the Great. Eastern Railway and it would cost him 1s. per week, or 2d. per day. If that man wanted to go the same distance on the London and South Western Railway it would cost him 4s. per week for the same journey. That difference meant a great, deal to a man earning a small wage. Another point was with regard to the time of running workmen's trains. The Board of Trade should be more active in causing the railway companies to carry out their obligations. He knew the difficulties on account of the smallness of the number of London termini. The Great Eastern Company had done much to meet their obligations, but if the Board of Trade would put pressure on the other companies relief would be given. Surely the Midland could do more than run five or ten, and surely the others could do more than run eleven trains per day. In the case of the Midland Company the latest workmen's train to arrive at their terminus was twelve minutes past seven in the morning. There were many young men and young women engaged in business places in the city who did not want to be at their places of employment until half-past eight or nine o'clock. Why should they be compelled to get to London at 7.12, to hang about for a couple of hours? At Liverpool Street' Station of the Great Eastern Railway they were obliged to come by trains arriving an hour or two before it was necessary to reach their places of employment. The churches of All Hallows, London Wall, and St. Katherine Coleman, Fenchurch Street, were thrown open from 6.30 until 8.30 a.m. to provide warmth and shelter for these young people. All honour to the clergy of those churches for what they did. Meanwhile the present Cheap Trains Act was eighteen years old. Since then the hours and other conditions of many employments had altered, more young women and girls went out to work than formerly, and a new Act was wanted. In any event, he suggested that there should be an inquiry by a Committee of Members

    335
    of both sides of the House as to how far it might be practicable and expedient to do more in the administration of the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 to meet the wants of the working classes. Let them have cheap trains which would bring them to their work at a reasonable hour instead of their being landed in London an hour or two before it was necessary and having to wait about railway stations on cold winter mornings before they could begin work. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the President of the Board of Trade."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
    CAPTAIN NORTONsupported the hon. Member for North Camberwell in the appeal he had made to the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman could solve this problem with the greatest ease by adopting a Bill which he himself had before the House. A society had, in the interests of the workpeople, attempted to bring pressure to bear on the railway companies to provide more suitable cheap trains. But the railway companies had the right of appeal to the Railway Commission. The procedure of that Commission was most expensive, and this fact had debarred the society from taking one course which might be open to them. The railway companies complained of the difficulty of distinguishing those who were working people from those who were not. In Belgium, on the State railways, workingmen could travel to and fro for distances up to twenty-five miles for 1s. 8d. per week. This privilege was open to all who were engaged in manual labour and under the orders of others. That was a proviso which the railway companies might be prepared to accept in making a certain diminution of their fares. It would be said that in Belgium the majority of the railways were State railways, but he found that the private railways gave practically the same concessions. The light railways and the tramways also gave facilities at certain hours. In France the difficulty as to
    336
    who were workingmen and who were not had been overcome by limiting the reduced fares to persons who came under a certain taxation of, say, 2,000 fr., or £80 per year. Owing to an Act passed in 1883 certain remissions of Government taxation were given to the railway companies. During the past twenty years taxation had been remitted to the amount of £10,000,000, and in return for this the railway companies were to provide a certain number of trains up to 8 a.m. daily for carrying the working-classes. A large number of those powerful companies had failed to carry out their portion of the contract. There would be no difficulty, even without further legislation, in getting something done if the President of the Board of Trade would place a certain amount of pressure on the railway companies to do what was being done in other countries. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring pressure to bear on the companies he could, under the powers of the Act of 1883, do much to solve the great problem of housing in London. He had no desire to press unduly or unfairly on the railway companies. They were entitled to as much consideration as the public whom they conveyed; but his contention was that, while the public had held to their part of the bargain, the companies had not held to theirs.
    MR. BRIGGsupported the claim put forward by the hon. Members for West Newington and North Camberwell for more travelling facilities for workpeople, and reminded the President of the Board of Trade that in all our larger towns there was the same difficulty as was found in London. People crowded to the large factories. In the northern counties there were outlying villages now almost deserted in which formerly work was carried on by hand; and it would be a great advantage to them if workpeople could travel night and morning a few miles to and from their work on such a system as that by which, in Belgium, weekly tickets for an eight-miles journey were issued for a franc. There were also special facilities given in Belgium to working-men who used bicycles. He thought that in some parts of the country

    337
    a formal inquiry should be held in order to ascertain the facilities that should be given.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid he was probably the only Member now in the House who was on the Royal Commission which had been referred to. The Commission attached very great importance to its recommendations, as calculated to solve the great and growing problem of overcrowding in towns. Many people who at present used the trains provided for the working class came to London at seven o'clock in the morning, though their work did not commence till half-past eight or nine. The spectacle of these young men and women hanging about for hours was one to be deplored. To take the people a few miles out of town by cheap and convenient trains was the means of solving the overcrowding problem. The Great Eastern Company had almost reached the limit of accommodation, and that company had much difficulty to contend with in the access to its London terminus. Other companies must take their share of the burden, and he felt sure the President of the Board of Trade would give a sympathetic reply to this appeal. He felt certain that they were going to have a sympathetic reply, if not a pledge from the President of the Board of Trade that he would stir up his Department and see whether something more could not be done to meet those complaints. He knew that the Royal Commission depended largely upon the increased activity of the Board of Trade to assist them out of the difficulty. Might he make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should consider seriously the question of the purchase of the railways surrounding this great metropolis for the purpose of the transport of workmen from their employment to healthy homes. He knew that there were railway systems that could be attached without any great risk, and that the Government would be putting their hands on almost the only means of settling the housing problem. There was another point to which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention during the autumn. Why did not the inspectors under the Weights and Measures Acts
    338
    enter breweries for the purpose of ascertaining the accuracy of the weights and measures of the goods sent out to their customers, in the same way as they entered the shop of every little village dealer? He had raised this question both in the House and the country before, and had never been able clearly to ascertain whether the inspectors were legally entitled to enter breweries. He believed in some parts of the country it was done, in great doubt and under considerable difficulty, but in other parts of the country it was not done.
    *MR. DAVID MORGANsaid he wished to join with the hon. Member for West Newington and the hon. Member for North Camberwell in their appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to grant an inquiry as to whether or not the railway companies were doing all that was required of them in the matter of cheap trains. A great deal had been said regarding the Great Eastern Railway, and as one who had lived on the Great Eastern Railway all his life, and had held a season ticket for forty years, he might be allowed to speak as to what that railway had done. They had done, it was true, an enormous deal, but still an enormous deal remained to be done, knowing as he did what took place in the early hours of the morning at Walthamstow. He believed that the Great Eastern Railway would do more if they could, but he thought he was right in saying that they could not run any more trains between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. than they did at present. Something had been said in the debate about working girls and women congregating in very large numbers at Liverpool Street station at an early hour, because they had to travel before 8 o'clock in order to have the advantage of a cheap ticket, whereas their work oftentimes did not commence before 9.30 or 10.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    *MR. DAVID MORGAN (continuing)said that the question of working girls and women, in the position to which he

    339
    had referred, was one which certainly demanded the attention of the Board of Trade, although the directors of the company had opened all their waiting rooms except one for their accommodation. He had asked the company for certain facilities for working women and girls. He had asked that cheap tickets should be issued to them after eight o'clock, but he was met with the reply that such special facilities could not be given to women and girls over and above men. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state if that were the case. If such special facilities could be given it would relieve working women and girls from a great deal of trouble and difficulty. It might be all very well in the summer, but he asked the Committee to consider what it meant in the depth of winter, when girls had to wait at Liverpool Street Station from perhaps 7.30 to 9.30. If the Board of Trade would grant an inquiry as to the extent to which the railway companies had met their obligations regarding cheap trains, he was sure that good would result. There was also another class which deserved consideration. He referred to lawyers' clerks, and others, in receipt of small salaries, who had to keep up a different appearance from that of the ordinary working man, although they often received less wages than a skilled artisan. Their case was excessively hard. He was quite sure that if the Board of Trade would only grant an inquiry, something might be done to help the working women and children, and also the other class to which he had referred, and that a great boon would be conferred on a very humble but very deserving class of workers.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid that while agreeing with his hon. friends in their demand for better railway facilities he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to one matter which had not yet been mentioned. The Board of Trade was the most important Department in the Government of the country. All the knowledge of the trade of the world was practically centred in it. He called attention to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade was the lowest paid head of any Department of the Government. The main point to
    340
    which he wished to call attention was the salary of the senior Director of Railways, which was put down at £1,400 per annum, but there was a footnote with regard to that item, from which he noted that this gentleman, in addition, received £450 a year for retired Army pay.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The reduction has been moved on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he was under the impression he was dealing with Vote A, but having regard to the remarks of the Chairman, he would not proceed with his remarks in that direction, but deal with that matter later on In conclusion, he would only say that, in his opinion, the miserable pittance which the President of the Board of Trade received was not sufficient, and if he had been in order he would have been inclined to move an increase, but, unfortunately, he was not.
    MR. HALSEYsaid that he could not but agree as to the desirability of promoting in every possible way cheaper trains for the benefit of the working classes, and further legislation, as had been suggested, might be necessary. He thought the mover of the reduction had been a little hard on the President of the Board of Trade, and he testified to the assistance he had received, not only from that gentleman, but also from his predecessor, when he was engaged in obtaining cheaper trains for working classes in his constituency. He had met with every consideration. No impediment was put in his way, and the success with which his efforts had been met was entirely due to the assistance he had received from the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor. The hon. Member for West Newington was perfectly right when he said the real difficulty was the appeal to the Railway Commissioners. He thought it was right that there should be an impartial tribunal, but he thought the cost of that appeal should be somewhat cheapened. The parties who went before the Railway Commissioners were not

    341
    equally matched. On the one hand, there was a rich railway company, and on the other a party of workmen with little money to spare. The hon. Member for West Newington quoted the practice in Belgium, but he did not think it would be wise to adopt any such definition of workpeople in this country, as it would cut out from all benefit those most deserving women and girls who were employed at restaurants.
    CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he only pointed out that if any difficulty arose it could he dealt with in the same manner as in France, where the rate of wages was the basis.
    MR. HALSEYsaid he was glad to hear the explanation of the hon Member, as it would save much misapprehension. It had been said that the congestion on the Great Eastern Railway would be met if the other railways were to increase their workmen's trains, but one must be just, and people could hardly expect railway companies to issue cheap tickets to desolate places in the country in the hopes of a workmen's colony growing up there; but when such a demand arose, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to get that demand granted.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have no reason to complain of the tone which the debate has taken on this occasion. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead, not that my salary should be reduced by £100, but that it was a miserable pittance. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury is not present. I wish he had been, and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the hon. Member for Gateshead made those generous remarks. He will, perhaps, take some opportunity, public or private, of pressing his views upon those gentlemen, who have the power to increase my salary, as I must admit it is not a subject which I could argue in my own favour at the present time. I now turn to the question of cheap trains. The hon. Member for North Camberwell has made two more or less definite suggestions. He proposes that the Board of Trade shall take the initiative of in-
    342
    quiring whether there is or not on any given railway sufficient accommodation.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not my proposal. That is a recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1885, which I merely reiterated to-night.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Well, I do not think it would be a convenient procedure, nor the procedure contemplated by the Act. The wording of the Act clearly shows that it was never contemplated that the Board of Trade should, independently of any suggestions from outside, inquire into the accommodation provided. Nor would such procedure be desirable. What has happened ever since the Cheap Trains Act came into force is that representations have been made either by persons immediately interested or by bodies of persons representing such people. Those representations have been taken into full consideration by the Board of Trade, and I can assure the hon. Member if any definite representations are made to us from any quarter we shall be only too happy to thoroughly investigate the facts and if necessary make representations to the railway company. The hon. Member for Watford has spoken of a particular case with which he was intimately connected. Representations were made to the Board of Trade, which investigated them and then negotiated with the railway company and succeeded in obtaining a substantial concession. It is by far the most convenient procedure, that before the Board of Trade makes any inquiries it should be set in motion.
    The second point which the hon. Member for North Camberwell pressed upon me was the desirability of making the fares and accommodation on different railways more uniform than they are at present. I think the remark made by the hon. Member for Watford, that railway companies could not be expected to run trains for the purpose, not of serving but of creating a traffic, answers that point. Every case must be treated on its merits, and as conditions differ, so they require different consideration. In some districts there are large colonies of workmen, and a large traffic can be made to pay at very low rates. Reference has

    343
    been made to the Great Eastern Railway, and the idea seems to be that the very low fares charged by that railway should be charged by other companies; but I may say that the low fares on the Great Eastern Railway are the result of a Parliamentary bargain made upon a private Bill, and it would not be fair to the other companies to suggest that the fares on the Great Eastern Railway should be made the standard by which their fares should be measured. It is inevitable that in a discussion of this sort arguments should be used pointing not so much to the administration of the Act by the Board of Trade as to questions of policy, and the desirability of introducing fresh legislation; but I venture to think that it is neither right nor convenient to enter into such matters upon this Vote. The point in my mind is this, that while railways can and, I think, do contribute considerably to the solution of the problem of the housing of the working classes, the solution of that problem is not so much a system of cheap train fares as cheap tramways, and until we see how far that problem is dealt with in other directions it would be undesirable to enter further into legislation for the extension of the Cheap Trains Act which the hon. Member proposes. That Act has worked admirably for the object desired, and I think that the hon. Member will find that if certain facilities have not been given, it is because they have not been asked for. The Railway Commission is undoubtedly an expensive tribunal, and where a grievance as to a particular company has been brought to the attention of the Board of Trade, it has frequently settled it in a cheaper manner. At the same time, I think we could not leave the railway companies altogether without the right of appeal. I have now dealt with most of the points raised in discussion. The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to the case of women and girls. I did not quite follow what his suggestion was.
    *MR. DAVID MORGANsaid that his point was that he understood, when he pressed the Great Eastern Railway to give better facilities for women and girls employed in London, that they could not do so, as it would be against the law.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not for me to give an opinion, but I am ready to consider that point if the hon. Gentleman will put his views fully before me. Another suggestion has been made that the time of these cheap trains shall be extended to nine o'clock and ten o'clock The first reply to be made to that is that it would require legislation, but the hon. Member who makes a suggestion of that kind hardly sufficiently remembers, perhaps, that the working classes are not the only classes for whose benefit railways exist. And if the time were extended, I do not think the companies would be able to cope with the traffic. To come back to what I have already said, I do not think that a full and final solution of the problem of the housing of the working classes can be expected from the railway companies.
    CAPTAIN NORTONpointed out that the granting of preferential rates to women and girls, or special facilities as to time, would not be contrary to the law in any way.
    MR. SOARESsaid he desired to call attention to the lack of communication between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty when inquiries took place with regard to wrecks, in consequence of which considerable amounts of public money were wasted in inquiries which served little or no purpose. When one desired to ascertain the truth with regard to a wreck, one was referred from the Board of Trade to the Admiralty and back again in a most bewildering manner. In the case of a particular wreck off the coast of Devon four lives were lost. It was plain from the appearance of one of the bodies when found that the unfortunate man had made a desperate attempt to climb the cliffs and had died of exhaustion; he was found fifty yards above high-water-mark, he was still warm, and blood was oozing from his wounds. Another fine young seaman had actually climbed the cliff, and had died also from exhaustion on land; one was found below high-water-mark and one just above high-water-mark. The first question that arose on those facts was, Did the coastguards do their duty, and was the number on that part of the coast adequate? Inquests were held on

    345
    the bodies, and the jury expressed a hope that an inquiry would be held in the matter in order to ascertain whether the coastguard service on that part of the coast was adequate. He put a question to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject on the 15th of February, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that he would put the matter before the Admiralty. Thereupon he put a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty, and elicited the reply that, when the report of the inquiry had been received, the matter would be inquired into. But when the inquiry was held, this question was excluded from the scope of the inquiry. If matters were allowed to remain as they were the consequences would be most serious. It had been said that these lives might have been saved had assistance been at hand. He had been told that the coastguard kept good watch, but not one of the bodies was found by the coastguard, nor did they observe any signals of distress, and it was admitted that no patrol was kept along this dangerous coast during the night. That would seem to show that the adequacy of the coastguard on that coast was a doubtful question. He hoped something would be done before the winter set in, otherwise many lives would be lost. The Elder Brethren of Trinity House were also involved in this matter, on the subject of the bar buoy. He had been told that that matter should be considered when the Report of the inquiry was received, but that matter had been also excluded from the inquiry.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDcalled attention to the question of manning in the merchant service. He said deliberately that owing to the bad arrangements of the Board of Trade numbers of valuable lives were from time to time lost at sea through ships being allowed to leave this country on long voyages without properly qualified sailors on board. At present the Board of Trade had the power of inquiring, before they were shipped, whether the men were qualified to be rated as able seamen, but they apparently had not the power of preventing the ships being manned by men who were not able to prove that they were able seamen. That was ah outrageous state of affairs. A man was not allowed to drive an engine
    346
    or a 'bus or a cab unless he satisfied the authorities that he was qualified to do so In every walk of life, save this one, men had to prove their qualifications; but merchant ships and sometimes emigrant ships were allowed to leave British and Irish ports without a single member of the crew being properly qualified. That was an alarming state of affairs, to which every Member of this House, whether English, Scotch, Welsh, or Irish, ought to have his attention directed. The single example of the "Primrose Hill" would prove his case. The "Primrose Hill," a large ship of over 2,000 tons register, sailed from Liverpool for Vancouver. She was wrecked off Anglesey, and out of a crew of thirty-four thirty-three were drowned. Naturally there, was an exhaustive Board of Trade inquiry, in which the following was one of the conclusions arrived at—
    "The court has found that the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequately manned. The court, before arriving at this conclusion, carefully considered the matter, but bearing in mind that on the present occasion she carried five apprentices and one ordinary seaman who had never been to sea before, that the other ordinary seaman had only been three voyages in a steamer, and that four of the remaining apprentices had not served more than fourteen months at sea—"
    and so on; and it also stated that there was only one certificated officer besides the captain. But the most important part of the whole inquiry, and the conclusion upon which he based his contention that the Board of Trade ought to take fresh powers in order to secure that properly qualified men went to sea, was the following—
    "It should further be noted that none of the A.B.'s had proved their claim to be so rated on account of service."
    The court were informed, moreover, that this was a very frequent circumstance. That was not a state of things which should be permitted to continue. He did not ask that every man on a ship should be able to prove that he had been long years at sea, but could not some inquiry be made with a view to the Board of Trade taking power to secure in some way that at least a proportion of the men who staffed a ship for a long voyage should be properly qualified sea men? Until that was done vessels would be wrecked and property and lives lost, simply because the Board of

    347
    Trade did not exercise a power which ought to be one of its very first functions. The Report in the "Primrose Hill" case further stated—
    "Having regard to the number and qualifications of the crew, the court is of opinion that the crew of the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequate for the purposes of her safe navigation."
    Thirty-three lives were lost, and that was the opinion of the court. Surely that was an appalling Report. The Merchant Service Guild of Liverpool, representing 6,000 or 7,000 merchant captains and merchant officers, had written to the Board of Trade asking whether, as a result of this Report, the Board of Trade would make some fresh inquiries for the purpose of arriving at some rule or regulation whereby it should be insisted upon that properly qualified men should be sent to sea upon merchant ships. That association, no doubt through no fault of the President of the Board of Trade, was treated with very scant courtesy by the Department, being simply informed that the Board did not propose to make the Report the basis of further instructions to their officers with reference to the manning of vessels. That was rather an unsatisfactory reply for a public Department to send to the representatives of a great mercantile association such as this. In view of the appalling state of affairs, the President of the Board of, Trade might at least have held out some hope that, if not by a Committee, by some departmental inquiry, it should be seen whether arrangements might not be made whereby officers of the Board of Trade, besides asking the men to produce their certificates of service and the proof of their qualifications to be rated as A.B., should have the power to say before a ship sailed, "No, we will not allow that ship, with valuable lives and valuable property on board, to sail from the ports of this country until we are satisfied that at least a certain proportion of the crew are thoroughly and satisfactorily qualified seamen, well able to take charge of the vessel." That was the demand put forward by the Merchant Service Guild of Liverpool, because, beyond yea or nay, it was proved up to the hilt that the "Primrose Hill" was lost, and, with one exception, the whole of the crew
    348
    drowned, simply because the men were not qualified seamen.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to dissent.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the Report stated in so many words that the loss of the ship was due largely to the fact that she was not manned by qualified sailors.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Might I just read a paragraph out of the Report which shows that the hon. Member is not quite accurate? It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that the court considered that the manning of the ship was not adequate, but they went on expressly to say—
    "There is, however, no evidence to satisfy the court that the loss of the vessel was due to such inadequacy."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDwas quite aware of that paragraph in the Report, but he contended that, when the court decided that the crew were inadequate, that not one single man of the A.B.'s was a qualified able seaman, that there was only one officer on board besides the captain with a certificate, that some of those on board had never been to sea before, and the ship was lost, it could not be denied that it was a very fair conclusion that the disaster occurred in consequence. The words of the Report were—
    "In answer to the questions, the court has found that the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequately manned…. It should further be noted that none of the A.B.'s had proved their claim to be so rated on account of service."
    That proved perfectly clearly that the ship was not properly manned. This was not an isolated case, for the court was informed that there were other cases in which men were allowed to navigate vessels and take charge of life and property without being able seamen. Another point was the fact that there was only one other officer beside the captain on this vessel who had a certificate. That was a disgraceful state of affairs. It was disgraceful that a ship of that magnitude, going on a long voyage, should be allowed to leave port without at least three certificated officers on board. If a vessel had only two officers with certificates on board, and the captain or the mate fell sick, one man had

    349
    day and night to conduct the whole navigation of the ship. It was impossible for him to do it. There certainly ought to be at least three men with certificates on every vessel of this tonnage. It was quite true that a man might sign articles to go on board and not be able to prove at the moment that he was a qualified A.B., but who still had the qualification. There might be such cases, but his argument was that there were a large number of cases the other way—of men who were unable under any circumstances to prove that they were qualified A.B.'s, but who were allowed to go on, with the result that lives were lost, ships wrecked, and property destroyed, as in the case of the "Primrose Hill." Many of these men were long-shore loafers; many were absolutely unfit, and, if the captain knew anything about them, would not be allowed to set foot on the vessel at all. Such men should not be allowed to be smuggled on board to the detriment of properly qualified seamen, many of whom were looking for, but were unable to obtain, employment. He therefore asked the President of the Board of Trade to see if it were not possible for the officials of the Board of Trade to make arrangements by which it should be ensured that every ship leaving this country had at least a fair proportion of qualified men in the crew—men who had proved their qualification. He did not believe there was a single Member of the House who would deny that that was a reasonable and fair demand, and one which ought to receive at least the attention and consideration of the Board of Trade. It was not necessary to go a single step beyond the "Primrose Hill," in regard to which it was found that not a single man of the crew was a proved or qualified seaman.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that is quite correct. There were 32 A.B.'s shipped as such, but with N.P. marked against their names. It does not follow from that that they were not qualified seamen. ["Oh, oh," and a laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but they really do not know what the facts are. In order to prove that an A.B. seaman is entitled to the rating A.B., he has to show that he has served for four years. He cannot do that unless he has all his discharges for that period. As a
    350
    matter of fact a large number of A.B.'s do not preserve their discharges. In this particular case it was really proved that one man's service exceeded nine years.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDadmitted that probably there were a few such cases on the "Primrose Hill," and he had already referred to the point. But, on the other hand, there was a tremendous number of cases of men who undoubtedly were shipped and who under any circumstances would not be in a position to prove that they were able seamen. They were allowed to take charge of these vessels, and the result was disaster. This question was somewhat akin to the great question raised years ago by the late Mr. Plimsoll. It was a question referring to the safety of British ships, to the safety of property, and to the safety of life, and he appealed to Members of every shade of opinion to forget for the moment that he was one of the much abused Irish Members, and to consider that in this matter at least he was voicing the strong opinion of large masses of English and Scotch, as well as Irish people, and that his object was not to disrupt the British Empire, but to try and save the lives of unfortunate men who were allowed to go to sea and take charge of ships when they were not properly qualified for the duty. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had said that if the Board of Trade put the letters "N.P." after a man's name it did not prove that he was not a properly qualified sailor. That was true. But was it not a perfectly absurd arrangement? The Board of Trade solemnly sent an official down to inquire whether a man was a properly qualified seaman. If the man cannot produce his discharge to prove his service, the agent simply puts "N.P."—not proven—after his name, and allows him to walk on board ship, to become one of the crew, just as if he had proved himself to be an A. B. Where was the sense of that? Besides asking for a man's qualifications, and having the power to put N.P. after his name, the Board of Trade should take to itself power to make such rules and regulations as should prevent a ship leaving port without a certain number of men on board

    351
    who practically had proved that they were properly qualified to look after the navigation of the vessel.
    *COLONEL ROPNERas a shipowner of many years standing, and President of the Chamber of Shipping, was surprised to hear the hon. Member say that a number of valuable lives were being lost in consequence of the Board of Trade not having sufficient power to see that vessels did not proceed to sea undermanned. This question of manning had occupied the attention of shipowners and the Board of Trade for a good many years. In the year 1894 there was appointed by the Board of Trade a Committee to inquire into the question, and the conclusions of that Committee, arrived at after a long inquiry, resulted in the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1897. Under that Act the Board of Trade had all the powers necessary to stop undermanned ships as unseaworthy. Consequently, he for one could not see what further power the hon. Gentleman wished to confer upon the Board of Trade. Every right thinking man would agree that all should be done to secure the safety of our sailors, but he claimed that, at any rate, in the direction of manning ships, everything had been done, and that nothing more could possibly be done under the circumstances. As to the accident to the "Primrose Hill," at the Board of Trade inquiry there was no proof adduced that the vessel was lost because she had not able seamen on board, or, for that matter, because she was not sufficiently and properly manned. No such allegation was made he believed; at any rate, the Court of Inquiry did not find that that was the case.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the "Primrose Hill" inquiry?
    *COLONEL ROPNER: I do, yes.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought he had better read two or three lines in the Report—
    "In answer to that question the court has found that the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequately manned. The court, before arriving at this conclusion, carefully considered the matter, bearing in mind that on the present occasion she carried five apprentices and one ordinary seaman who had never been to sea before; another ordinary seaman had only been
    352
    three voyages on a steamer, four of the remaining apprentices had not served more than fourteen months at sea, and there was no certificated second officer; and it should further be noted that none of the A.B.'s had proved their claim to be so rated on account of service."
    It further stated—
    "Having regard to the number and the qualification of the crew, the court is of opinion that the crew of the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequate for the purpose of her safe navigation, either on a winter voyage or the voyage in question having regard to the weather encountered. There is, however, no evidence to satisfy the court that the loss of the vessel was due to such inadequacy."
    But when a vessel manned and described in that way got wrecked and the crew drowned, surely there was some evidence in that.
    *COLONEL ROPNERsaid the hon. Gentleman confirmed what he had said. He stated that the court did not find that the vessel was lost in consequence of being undermanned. [AN HON. MEMBER: Yes; because dead men tell no tales.] The hon. Member seemed to imagine that the vessels of to-day were all sailing vessels, as they used to be, and that consequently a sailor must be a fully-qualified and a highly-trained man in order to be able to fulfil his duties as a seaman on board a vessel. That might be perfectly true as far as sailing vessels were concerned, but sailing vessels were fast becoming things of the past, and he believed that, in a very short time, they would have only steamers at sea. On board a steamer there was, practically, little qualification required for a sailor. Any ordinary man, if he had his wits about him, could fulfil all the duties required from a sailor on board a steamer after a short training. A knowledge of the working of the sails of a ship and the masts was not now an essential qualification for a sailor, because steamers had few sails, if any. All that was required was a man with common sense, and such a man could in a few voyages—say to Australia and home again, or for that matter in a single voyage—learn to steer a vessel, and as soon as he had acquired that knowledge, then he was practically qualified to act as sailor on board a steamer. Consequently the House would understand that to-day there was absolutely no necessity to have men on board for many years to teach

    353
    them the use of ropes and management of sails as used to be the case upon sailing vessels. There were no such qualifications required at present, except in the case of the few sailing vessels which were still in existence. He should like to say that he was very much in favour of doing all that could be done in the direction of making sailors more comfortable on board, and by so doing getting the best and the steadiest men. The system of continuous discharge which was instituted last year would, he thought, to a large extent assist shipowners and captains in getting good sailors, and that measure had rendered further legislation unnecessary at the present moment. This continuous discharge system would go a very long way in the direction of providing reliable and steady men such as were required for the mercantile marine service, and until this system had been properly tried and found wanting, there was absolutely no necessity for any further legislation with regard to this matter. Speaking as a shipowner, he thought that it was the desire of shipowners generally to have sober, steady, and reliable crews, who were able to navigate their steamers satisfactorily. Shipowners were doing a good deal in that direction, and were trying to induce sailors to remain in their employ by providing for them better accommodation, better food, and also by paying them a part of their wages when laid up on shore owing to an accident. He believed that in this direction very much more good could still be done. It was a mistake to suppose that the shipowning community were a set of men who did not care for the comfort and the lives of their crews.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I did not say that.
    *COLONEL ROPNERassured the hon. Gentleman opposite and every other hon. Member of the House that the gentlemen who owned the ships of this country were quite as honourable men as could be found anywhere, and they had no desire to do anything but that which was right and proper. But to ask the Board of Trade, on account of a single accident, to introduce fresh legislation, was to his mind a thing
    354
    which should not for one moment be entertained by this House.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am certain that he does not wish to misrepresent me. I made no attack whatever upon the shipowners. Naturally, it is to their interest, if not more than to the interest of any other class of the community, that these horrible things, which are lamented by everybody, should cease. I said nothing at all to the effect that the shipowners were not honourable men, because I am sure that these things are regretted not only by the shipowners, but also by the Government and by everybody concerned.
    *COLONEL ROPNERsaid he was very sorry if he had misunderstood the hon. Member. He believed the hon. Member for East Clare instanced the wreck of the "Primrose Hill" as one of a number of similar accidents. The hon. Member, however, failed to give them any other instances.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I can give the hon. and gallant Member plenty of instances, and I did not give more because I was under the impression that I had spoken too long already. I commenced my speech by pointing to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in answer to a question which I put to him, and in which he informed me that there were more or less connected with this question some fifty-one instances.
    *COLONEL ROPNERsaid he did not know anything about those fifty-one cases. He only knew what the hon. Gentleman opposite stated in this House. He said that the "Primrose Hill" was one of a number of instances, and he failed entirely to give any other example of the number of such cases which he evidently had in his own mind, and of which he had no knowledge. He was sorry to have taken up the time of the House so long upon this matter, but he felt that it was necessary that a word or two should be said on behalf of the shipowners. He did not think that it was the desire of anybody in this House to unduly interfere with the shipping trade of this country.

    355
    Hon. Members were aware that at the present moment we were being driven out of markets by foreign competition, and why? Simply because the shipping industry had been interfered with to a far greater extent than had been the case in foreign countries. Regulations had been made which had already been the cause of the sale of a very large number of British steamboats to foreign countries, and this had taken away the employment of a large number of British sailors. That was the consequence of legislative interference with the British shipping industry. Some years ago a load-line on British ships was enforced, and this load-line legislation interfered to a very large extent with the vessels on the north-east coast; and the consequence was that many British steamers had to be sold to the Swedes, Norwegians, and the Danes, and those very vessels were to-day being navigated by these foreigners, and were safely carrying to the extent of from 100 tons to 150 tons more than would have been allowed under British regulations. If such legislation had not taken place those vessels would to-day not only have been earning good money for the men who invested their capital in them, but they would also have been employing British sailors. He hoped the time was gone by for the continual interference which had taken place in the past, for such interference, instead of doing any good, had frequently done a great deal of harm, and instead of making navigation safer, it had in many instances made it more unsafe. He could refer to several instances of this kind, but he would conclude by again urging the House to refrain from any further interference with a class of the community which was anxious to do all that was possible to maintain the pre-eminent position of the British mercantile navy in spite of the competition of the subsidised and bounty-fed foreign vessels.
    *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that with characteristic courage the hon. Member for East Clare had taken up the cause of the British sailor in a very able and moderate speech, and he had very ably filled the breach caused by the absence from the House of the late
    356
    Member for Middlesbrough. He sincerely deplored the absence of his friend Mr. Havelock Wilson from the House He did not always agree with him, but he occasionally showed that excess of zeal on behalf of the sailors which, from a mistaken point of view, the hon. Member who had just spoken in support of a wrong cause and a bad case had shown on behalf of the shipowners. Before he came to close quarters upon this subject he wished to deal with one or two of the statements made by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He did not intend to make any insinuations against shipowners, captains, or any other persons, and he was going to deal strictly with the facts. What was the picture which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton had drawn? To listen to him anyone would imagine that the Board of Trade had interfered so vexatiously with the shipping industry that their ships were being driven off every sea, and that the British mercantile marine was a "baseless fabric of a vision, leaving not a wrack behind." Let him go to "Mulhall's Dictionary," let him take up Fairplay, the Shipping Gazette, or the Shipping World, and he would find that to-day Britain built 82 per cent. of the ships and owned 62 per cent. of the shipping of the world. He would also find that their command over the making and owning of ships, both in regard to sailing ships and steamers, was absolutely and relatively as great, and even greater, than it had ever been before at any period of their mercantile history. So much for the hon. Member's exaggerated argument in regard to vexatious interference. He would content himself with giving that fact, which was worth a ton of the hon. Member's theory.
    The hon. Member also said that he hoped that the Shipping Federation would, by a system of bonuses, be able to induce men to stay in their ships and so secure a more experienced class of men than they got in the past. In this argument the hon. Member proved his case against himself. The object of this bonus was to make ship life so attractive that men would stick to their ships more permanently and regularly than they now did, and that was the object of

    357
    giving bonuses. In his opinion bonuses alone were useless to induce men to stay in their ships. Other causes were responsible for the unpopularity of sea life. Their object was to assist in removing these causes by legislation which would cause shipowners to improve the conditions of sea life by not overworking and otherwise ill-treating the men. Under-manning meant over-working sailors, and these bogus bonuses would not induce them to stay in their ships at all. He found from the official organs that shipmasters at their monthly or quarterly meetings, and shipowners in their discussions, were confronted with this tremendous fact that, putting agitators and what was said by interested shipowners on one side, foreign sailors were increasing while British sailors were diminishing and deteriorating. It was admitted that the food of the sailors was bad, that they were overworked, that under-manning still prevailed, and, most significant of all, desertions from British ships were disproportionately increasing, What the hon. Member for East Clare, and what they all wanted, to do was to make sea life so attractive that they would get British sailors in British ships, and to accomplish that over-working, under-feeding, and under-manning should cease. The conditions of sea life ought to be so much improved as to enable it to assume its old-time attractiveness, and then the English sailor would be attracted to that class of work. How could that be done? It could not be done by bonuses. Had the hon. Member opposite made any suggestions by which this could be accomplished? No. He said that everything had been done to prevent under-manning, and he declared that the law was sufficiently strong already to deal with it. He said that sailing vessels were disappearing, and that in a short time most of these difficulties would disappear. He ought to know that sailing vessels had been built to such an extent that generations would elapse before such vessels disappeared. It was a mistake for shipowners to so easily predict the disappearance of the sailing vessel. The sailing vessel was not going to disappear so quickly as many hon. Members seemed to think, and in the meantime the lot of its crew should be improved. He was staggered when he heard the hon.
    358
    Member say that there was no necessity to have sailors of many years standing at all, and here the hon. Member contradicted himself. What he had stated was directly contrary to the experience of the Shipping Federation, Fairplay, the Shipping Gazette, and the Shipping World. He would not quote the opinion of a shipowner, or the opinion of the former Member for Middlesbrough, but he had in his hand a Report of a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the manning of British merchant ships. This was a document which was not the product of an agitator or a shipowner, but it was the deliberate conclusions of a Committee on which the shipping interest, in my opinion, had a disproportionate amount of representation. And what does this document say? Recommendation 27 says—
    "That at least three fourths of the crew of a sailing ship should be individually effective, i.e., of ratings not lower than that of A.B."
    That was one recommendation. Recommendation 21 says—
    "That it should be made illegal to withdraw men from the prescribed minimum staff of the stokehold for service in engine room or for other purposes."
    Why did the Committee make that recommendation? Because, as the hon. Member knew, it was stated before the Committee and proved that in many instances men were withdrawn from the stokehold for service in the engine-room and to do work on deck. Recommendation 24 says—
    "That sailing ships should be manned with some regard to sudden emergencies."
    Recommendation 30 provides—
    "That a ship is in an unseaworthy state when she leaves port without sufficient officers, or with her responsible officers unfitted for their duty by reason of prolonged overwork, and that no ship of large size or power should be permitted to go to sea without provision having been made that the deck shall always be in charge of some person who has given proof of his qualification, by service or examination, for such a position."
    Recommendation 31 reads—
    "That not less than two mates should be carried in any sailing ship of 1,000 or more tons under deck, clearing from a port in the United Kingdom. That steamers of 500 tons gross and over should have two mates, and of 2,000 tons gross and over, three mates."

    359
    Recommendation 32 provides—
    "That the absence of any requirement with regard to certificated masters, officers or engineers in the home trade, except in passenger ships, urgently demands legislation."
    Recommendation 33 says—
    "That the bridge of a steamer should never be left without an officer when the vessel is under weigh, and that the practice of taking away the look-out man at night to raise ashes, trim lights, etc., or the officer of the watch from the bridge to clear up for cargo, etc., is most reprehensible, as fraught with danger to navigation, and should be prohibited by law."
    In these recommendations they had the calm, deliberate report of a Committee appointed to consider under manning, and these were some of their recommendations. Now, how did they start their Report? Be asked the hon. Member's attention to this. Paragraph No. 7 reads—
    "On the other hand, the Committee have found that in certain classes of ships there is a tendency to reduce the number of men out of proportion to the adoption of improvements in the rig or labour-saving appliances of the vessels, and that many vessels which have been referred to in evidence, or reported on by courts of inquiry, have not been so manned as to conduce either to the safety or well-being of the crews."
    There was evidence clear and unmistakable, on the authority of the Manning Committee, supported by the appendices of that Report, that the statements made by the hon. Member for East Clare, and repeated many times in this House by the Member for Middlesbrough, were absolutely true. Hon. Members always wanted them to cite special instances and then qualify the details. He would only give another case. Take paragraph 13, which reads—
    "The 'Deeside' (569 tons gross) is a typical case. That vessel had only two men in a watch, and whilst one of those men was absent from the look-out, trimming a side-light which had become dim, the vessel was run into and sunk, with several of the crew, by the 'Ludgate Hill' (4,063 tons gross). Notwithstanding the strong condemnation pronounced by the Judge of the Admiralty Division of the High Court against the practice of undermanning which led to this fatal collision, the Board of Trade were advised that a prosecution would not be successful, because, whilst there were sufficient men on board who might have been called and stationed on the look-out, it could not be said that the vessel was undermanned.
    "In the case of the 'Cromartyshire,' which the "Wreck Commissioner declared to have been undermanned, the Board of Trade were advised that a prosecution would not be
    360
    successful, and that the law gave no power of detention for undermanning."
    Why did the Board of Trade take that view? Because it was a moot point in the mind of the Board of Trade as to whether undermanning was unseaworthiness, and this Committee especially appointed to consider it decided that undermanning should be made a standard of unseaworthiness, and they asked the Board of Trade not only to adopt that view, but to enforce the law dealing with this condition of things. He had defended the hon. Member for East Clare from the charge of exaggeration, and he had also proved that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough had been more than justified in the statements he had made on behalf of the sailors. He ventured to say that if they were to ask the owners of the Cunard Line or the owners of any of the best lines of steamers, whatever their politics, or whatever their views in regard to agitators might be, he believed they would be found ready to agree that the recommendations of this Manning Committee, whose document he had quoted, could without injury to the shipping trade be adopted, and should be adopted in the interests of attracting to the merchant service a more experienced and a steadier class of men who would serve shipowners much better than they did at the present time.
    There was another point which he wished to deal with, and it related to a subject which was being discussed in the nautical papers. He referred to the scandalous instances of crimping that had taken place in American and other ports. Two years ago the former Member for Middlesbrough aroused quite a storm of indignation in the House of Commons because he suggested that in this matter some of the British consuls had not done their duty as they should have done in the direction of protecting the British sailor. What has happened since then? They had a Report dated 1899 presented to the House by the Board of Trade upon merchant shipping. It dealt with the engagement of seamen, desertions, and kindred subjects. The Shipping World, which is edited by an ex-Member of this House, who was a man of great ability and studious moderation, published several articles upon this subject, and

    361
    this was what it said about the lack of discouragement on the part of the consular agents in reference to crimping. The article is headed "Seamen, Crimps, and Consuls":—
    "We print to-day the last of Mr. Stephen's articles on crimping and desertion in American ports. It has been shown that blame for the present condition of things is attributed to a variety of causes, apart from want of laws and treaties, namely: (1) Collusion between crimps and subordinates of H.M.'s consulates; (2) agreements between British shipowners and (or) captains on the one hand and so-callad shipping masters on the other, whereby the crimp or shipping master pays for the privileges of inducing desertion and shipping fresh crews; (3) insufficient and badly cooked food on British ships; and (4) the nefarious work of crimps. We respectfully invite the serious attention of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade to the fact that a taint rests upon more than one of our Consulates abroad; it is criminal to ignore this fact. There is really no doubt of the essential truth of some of the allegations of Mr. Havelock Wilson, made when he represented Middlesbrough in Parliament, and attributable to subordinate consular officers and clerks—that they are in league with crimps and shipping masters. This is a matter which should be carefully inquired into by the departments; and where guilt is discovered then the responsible consul should be dismissed or discharged."
    He would add no single comment of his own to that statement. He said if the Shipping World be true, and it was backed up by the evidence of the reports of our own consular officers in this particular Parliamentary document, these facts warranted that the Board of Trade, in deference to the wish of good shipowners and good sailors, should at once appoint a small committee of responsible men who would consider the questions of desertion, under-manning, crimping, bad food, and the unattractiveness of mercantile marine life for our sailors, and see if they could not suggest to Parliament some remedy for this deplorable condition of things. On this head he would conclude by quoting one of our own consuls, and he would direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to this document. It was issued in 1899 at the right hon. Gentleman's own instigation, he presumed. At page 43 Mr. Alan Williams made a number of suggestions, and he asked the House respectfully to listen to him, and when they did so to remember that similar charges and suggestions were made by
    362
    the late Member for Middlesbrough. Mr. Williams said—
    "Briefly, the causes and remedies I should suggest are as follows:—

    (1) Desire to obtain work on shore; make ships' forecastles more comfortable; cabins for two and four men; abolish open ones with the windlass in the centre.

    (2) Ill-treatment and poor food; allow a magistrate or consul to grant a discharge if he saw fit to men who have a just reason for complaint; improve the sale of provisions; owners should themselves inspect food.

    (3) Boarding-house masters and crimps; compel shipmasters to take a certain proportion of their men out of the sailors' homes. (In Capetown the Sailor's Home receives an annual grant of £250 from the Colonial Government); local authorities to give licences to sailors' boarding houses, and withdraw them when not properly conducted. In Cape Town this month a boarding-house master has been convicted for 'illicit drink traffic' on his premises.

    (4) Driving men out of ships; all forfeited wages to Seamens' Pension Fund. Men sign for slops—this most important, as otherwise there might be no wages to hand over to such a fund.

    (5) Abolition of present system of discharges, and adoption of German or Scandinavian plan."

    Any man who knew what sailors had to do in the middle passage between Madeira and the West Coast of Africa would understand the reasonableness of the recommendation that forecastles should be made more comfortable. If they wanted to attract sailors to their ships they must not have forecastles as he had seen them—narrow, confined, dirty, insanitary, and ill-ventilated places. The consul might have said something also about; the blinding snow and wind and rain coming in at the windlass opening. [AN HON. MEMBER: Snow in tropical climates?] There were passages which included the tropics which could be very uncomfortable in the winter time. If the hon. Member were a seafaring man he would know that it was possible to be uncomfortable during a voyage three-quarters of which was in tropical or semitropical climates, but the hon. Member was not a seafaring person. He would make an excellent pair with that hon. Member who once said that he was not an agricultural labourer. These recommendations which he had quoted were some of the thirty or forty excellent proposals made by consular officers for the improvement of the sailor's condition.

    363
    Now he would deal briefly with food. He asked a question in 1894, it is true, but it held good to-day. He asked Mr. Mundella—whose death they all deplored—how many instances he had had of food being rejected because it was bad, and he replied that out of 1,015 inspections of food and provisions there were 391, or 33 per cent., rejected as unfit for use. He believed that the same percentage would obtain to-day. Now, he would give to the Board of Trade a suggestion. Some day we should be at the end of this war, and probably before it was at an end there would be an immense amount, ranging from thousands of tons, of rejected tinned foods, preserved foods and other things. What the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the War Office and the Admiralty, ought to do was, immediately the war was over, to see that all that stuff was put into a dust destructor, or that it was chemically destroyed. If it was not treated in that way, for years after the war was over our mercantile marine would be living on that stuff, which ought to have been condemned at the end of the war. [AN HON. MEMBER: No.] The hon. Member might say it was not so, but he knew something about this, and he asked them, in the face of this percentage of rejection of bad foods, to see that the sailor got better food than he did now. Had not the hon. Member for West Clare been justified? Had not the late hon. Member for Middlesbrough been vindicated? He thought they had, in the two Reports he had quoted from this Parliamentary document. He would conclude by asking the President of the Board of Trade to defer to the request that had been made. He made no attack on shipowners. He had quoted facts. He appealed in this matter to the shipowners, and especially the best shipowners, who inevitably drifted into this House. The worst ones did not come here. When criticism was made against shipowners, many good ones fitted on the cap as though it were intended for them. He appealed to the best shipowners in this House to re-read their mercantile papers Fairplay and the Shipping World, to go through the master seamen's discussions, and to read the pamphlets on crimping, bad food, and the undesirable environments of the
    364
    sailor's life when in port and also on board ship, and to co-operate with the best friends of the seamen and the mercantile marine in the labour world to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the President of the Board of Trade to at once introduce a short Bill carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of 1896. If these recommendations were embodied in a Bill he considered that they could get it through the House next year. If they were not disposed to embody these recommendations in a Bill next year, let the President of the Board of Trade, in the face of these facts, appoint another Committee with a view to legislate next year, so that the sailor's life might be made more attractive than it was, and that the number of foreigners who were rapidly coming into our ships might be diminished.
    One of these days we would deplore this foreign element in our ships—perhaps at a moment when it was too late. Then the much defended lascar would fail us. Next to a crew of British seamen—Scotch firemen, Irish deck hands, an English mate, always with a Scotch skipper, and always Scotch engineers—next to the Anglo-Saxon, he believed the best seamen were those to be found on the West Coast of Africa. But in the hour of emergency, when the rudder was gone, when the engines were done for, when they were face to face with a critical occasion, when they wanted, guts in their men and moral courage in their officers, would the lascar serve them in the face of such emergency in the same manner as the British seaman? When, perhaps, through spread-eagle Imperialism we were at close quarters, and perhaps in death grips, in three or four quarters of the world we wanted men like Nelson's boys to hold the seas, it was not the lascar who would perform that service. It was the Irish or Scotch stoker and the British captain who would best on these occasions stand between us and danger. In that crisis we would want men who had had good food, to give them that strength wherewith to face the elements and withstand climatic difficulties. We had not got these men to-day because we did not pay our men enough. We allowed them to be badly fed, our forecastles were dirty and unsatisfactory, our vessels were too

    365
    often over-worked and under-manned, and the time had arrived when, if we wished to maintain the maritime supremacy we had now, it must be done by the predominance of Anglo-Saxon sailors. The time had arrived when the President of the Board of Trade should lick these recommendations into the shape of a little Bill, so that these long-standing grievances might be remedied and something done to improve the miserable lot of the sailor.
    MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he quite endorsed what the hon. Member had said in regard to the conditions under which the shipping trade was carried on. The British shipowner's business was heavily handicapped, for, by reason of the way he had to meet foreigners, he was placed at a great disadvantage. But if some of the suggestions which had been made were carried out in the British mercantile fleet it would be bad not only for shipowners but also for sailors. It was desirable to increase the sailors' comforts, but he deprecated altogether looking at the matter from only one side. This was not at all the question of shipowner versus sailor, or sailor versus shipowner. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Battersea had imported rather a bitter tone into the debate, and had rather pointed the discussion as against the shipowner. He preferred the tone in which the hon. Member for East Clare addressed himself to the subject. He did not see that it was at all a question between shipowner and sailor, and he would try to look at the matter fairly. It had been said with justice that the sailors had grievances, and, while he regretted their existence, he believed they could not be remedied without casting fresh burdens on the shipowners. There was a sailor's side and a shipowner's side to the question. When we found that foreigners were gradually superseding British seamen and pushing them out of employment, and when we saw by the figures which had been recently given what was going on, he agreed that something should be done. In 1859 there were only eight foreigners to every hundred British persons employed on board our ships. In 1889 there were twenty-one foreigners to every hundred persons, so that we must feel that we were face
    366
    to face with an alarming state of things. There was another thing to be considered, and it was equally important, namely, the deterioration of the character of our seamen. He did not dwell upon that, because it might be to some extent outside the point. He would deal only with the questions brought before the Committee that night, and he would try to indicate a few of the points which required to be remedied.
    In the first place, what we required was a larger supply of qualified seamen. The Board of Trade had done something in that direction, but the boy-sailor scheme had worked badly, because it was complicated with the question of light dues. It would have been better it they had granted a certain payment to every shipowner who carried a certain number of boys with a view to their being enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve. He was glad to be able to confirm what was said by the hon. and gallant Member behind him that shipowners were moving in this way. The shipowners felt that they wanted to be independent. They did not want to be restricted by Government, nor did they want assistance. The Chamber of Shipping had appealed to every shipowner to carry at least two apprentices on board ship, and that, if carried out, no doubt would be a step in the right direction, for what we wanted was a better supply of ordinary and able seamen on board our vessels. The question of manning had been referred to, He thought a Bill framed to include the recommendations of the Committee would be not a little Bill, but a very big Bill. It would be a long time in passing this House, and that would be a very bad thing. But there was one thing he recommended, and that was that training ships should be established throughout the coasts for the purpose of training respectable lads for service at sea. The hon. Member for East Clare had directed attention to the desirability of every ship carrying a certain proportion of properly trained seamen whose competency had been proved. He had a great deal of sympathy with him in the views he had expressed. He had himself drawn attention to the rather remarkable practice that had sprung up (though he did not say it was a

    367
    culpable practice) that when a man presented himself at a shipping office and could not prove that he was an A.B., he was taken on the rating of an A.B. That was very remarkable. It might be inevitable in the existing circumstances, but it was very undesirable, and he looked forward to the day when it would be possible to require that our seamen should be compelled to prove their qualifications, because, until we did that, and distinguished between properly trained seamen and the rag-tag and bobtail who came on board our ships on the same terms, we would never raise the profession of the seaman to a proper standing. As long as our trained British seamen had to compete on equal terms with the scum of the cities, almost the scum of the world, the tramps and loafers, we could never elevate that trade to a proper standing. He looked forward, in the future at all events, for some such distinction as he had indicated. It was impossible at present, for the reasons he had already given. How could we expect a sailor to show discharges for four years? It was not to be expected that he would keep them, and the result of such a requirement would be to increase the difficulty which captains and shipowners had in getting crews. Reference had been made to the case of the "Primrose Hill." The captain of that vessel, Captain Wilson, before he sailed, wrote a letter to the Liverpool Journal of Commerce in which he said that he had gone to the Board of Trade to supply a crew, and that he had been going about trying to find a crew. At last he had to go out into the river and anchor there, and to take the crew on board. It was due to that that the ship sailed late and encountered the hurricane in which she was lost. The captain did not complain of the crew, or the ship, or the owners, but of the system which compelled him to employ other persons to get a crew for him. The Board of Trade had instituted that very valuable system which dealt with discharges. He believed it had been fully brought before the public. He believed that under that system, if continued, we would be able to work some plan by which the sailor might be required to prove his qualification before he shipped.
    368
    One word more as to another remedy, and one which he thought was most important, and that was that we ought to make the service more attractive to our sailors, and the only point which he wished to touch upon in that connection was a pension scheme. He thought we ought to have a pension scheme for our sailors, and one initial way of doing that would be if the sailors were given more encouragement to enter the Royal Naval Reserve, and if a better and more satisfactory pension was attached to the Royal Naval Reserve, It would be a great inducement to respectable men to follow the calling of sailors if some provision was made for them in old age. He could only say that he thought we needed to face this problem. We must deal with it in three ways. We must endeavour to increase the supply of trained seamen, we must endeavour to give a preference to trained men over untrained men, and we must endeavour to make the service more attractive to our sailors.
    MR. BRYCEsaid this was really a question of great importance. There was no doubt at all, he thought, that the Member for East Clare was quite right in saying that many of our vessels were under-manned, and that in consequence of that under-manning many British fives were lost. There was certainly the impression left upon his mind in perusing a great number of the reports of courts of inquiry, that a large number of vessels did go to sea undermanned, and that it frequently happened when the vessel was lost and the circumstances of the loss were unknown we had every reason to conclude that under-manning was the cause of the loss. There was good reason, he thought, to believe that this dreadful loss of British life, which anyone could establish for himself by reading the Report on Under-manning, was one considerable cause of loss of life at sea. The hon. Member for Battersea called attention to the Report of the Committee which was appointed when Mr. Bryce was at the Board of Trade in 1894, and reported in 1896. He would not say that everything reported by that Committee could be carried out, but he thought some of the recommendations made furnished the basis of legislation. But he was struck with the fact that all

    369
    our departmental legislation in this House was getting into arrears. It had become a very serious evil. He thought that in all the principal departments there were Bills pigeon-holed from year to year which collectively, if carried, would improve the condition of this country, and especially of the working classes, and the industries of the country, and for which, under the present arrangements, the time could not be found. He would recommend to the Government the desirability of endeavouring to consider whether a greater quantity of this much-needed departmental legislation could not be passed. It was for the most part unconnected with party, and non-controversial, and he thought a great deal more required to be done in that way.
    With regard to under-manning, he did not think legislation was needed. As far as he understood, the present state of the law on the subject of under-manning gave quite sufficient power to the Board of Trade to deal with it, and if the Board of Trade were to put in force the power which it had in that matter it would be able to meet the case. He believed that the difficulty was that the Board of Trade officers found themselves scarcely able to work up to the law, and in point of fact their practice did not quite come up to what the law required. He believed the difficulty lay very much in the fact that there was not a sufficient supply of British sailors. That, indeed, was admitted by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool. Then came the enormous difficulty, how we were to increase the number of sailors. Too large a number of sailors came in from foreign countries. It was true that some of these were among the best in the world, such as the Swedes and Norwegians, but a large number were not the best, such as lascars, who were very well in the tropics, but not in cold climates. He thought it was very much to be desired, not only for the safety of our sea-going ships, but also for political considerations, that we should have a larger proportion of British sailors in our ships. The Board of Trade brought forward the boy-sailor scheme a few years ago. He was afraid that scheme had not satisfied the expectations of its promoters. He earnestly hoped that the Board of Trade would be able to bring in some practical measure
    370
    which would make the profession of seamanship more attractive to good British men. It would be necessary for shipowners in one way or another, by providing more comforts or by paying higher wages, to make the profession of seamanship more attractive to good British men. He did not think, at any rate, it would be possible to go on with the present plan, for it was the case that a captain was frequently obliged to go to sea with a crew which he knew to be unfit. It was not altogether the fault of the shipowner.
    Then, he should be glad to hear what was being done to carry out the Act of last year in regard to automatic couplings, and to make the railway companies provide these couplings more speedily. He hoped that prompt and effective action had been taken. Although the Board of Trade had no power over the companies in regard to the accommodation and the heavy rates charged for cycles, they had the power to advise them, and no doubt they could exercise a great deal of influence in that way. Unless the companies bestirred themselves in that matter, they would incur a great deal of unpopularity inside and outside the House. He wished also to ask what was being done under the Act intended to enable the Board of Trade to procure the shortening of the hours of labour of railway servants where the Board of Trade were convinced that the hours of labour were too long for the health of the men and the safety of the public. Something was being done, but he thought less was being done than might be expected, and he wished the Board would do a little more to induce the railway companies to reduce the hours.
    He did not think it would be right, on the first occasion the House discussed the Board of Trade Vote since the death of Sir Courtenay Boyle, for him to sit down without paying a tribute to that distinguished public servant. Sir Courtenay Boyle was accomplished in many ways. No man could have been more zealous in the discharge of his public duties. He regarded it a high privilege and honour to serve the best interests of the commerce and industry of the country. No man could have been more perfectly loyal and devoted to the Minister under whom he was placed. He rendered great service as a conciliator and arbitrator in

    371
    labour disputes. He selected his subordinates in that duty with great care, and when he himself had to deal with difficult questions, his tact and judgment achieved success. He was one of the best Government servants of our generation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he joined most heartily in every word which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to the great loss which the Board of Trade and the nation had suffered by the death of Sir Courtenay Boyle. That gentleman's power of work, his vigour, and his ability and judgment could not possibly have been excelled. He need hardly say that having come so recently to the Board of Trade he himself felt a great personal loss in being deprived of the services of so valuable an ally in his Department. With respect to the Act passed last year as to accidents to railway servants, the Board of Trade had issued draft rules, carefully prepared under the powers of the statute, and the proper announcements required by the Act had been made in the London and Dublin Gazettes. A period of six weeks was given within which the companies could make objection. That period had expired, and a very considerable number of objections had been laid; but he did not think they would cause very much difficulty in the administration of the Act. With regard to cycles, the Board of Trade had really no power in the matter. Of course it was possible for the Board of Trade to lend its friendly offices to endeavour to persuade the companies to adopt a different attitude towards the public, and they were always ready to do so, but they had no statutory power to compel the railway companies to do anything.
    ME. BRYCEsaid that the Board of Trade was at the same time the controller and defender of the railway companies. It had the right not only to give advice to the companies but to put them under terms. The Board of Trade had a good deal of moral influence in that way, and it should warn the companies that if they did not make some concessions in regard to the accommodation and the rates charged for cycles they would not find themselves advantaged in this House.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that
    372
    was true, but it was a power which they ought to exercise with great discretion. As to complaints which had been lodged against railway companies about long hours, these had been diminishing year by year, which he regarded as satisfactory. The hon. Member for Barn-staple had raised the question of the insufficiency of the coast guards on the west coast of England. The Board of Trade had been in communication with the Admiralty on the subject, and he had since heard that it was proposed to increase the coastguard service at Westward-Ho. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Clare, he had no desire to question the hon. Member's motive, but he might have taken a little more trouble to be accurate. There was not evidence to satisfy the court that the loss of the "Primrose Hill" was due to under manning.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he had quoted from the Report to show that the vessel was not adequately manned, and that only two officers on board held certificates. Where was the inaccuracy in that?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the master and the mate both held British certificates, and the boatswain, who acted as second mate, held a Norwegian certificate. The hon. Member desired legislation to secure that on all ships a proportion of the crew should be able to prove that they were entitled to the rating of able seamen; but the hon. Member perhaps was not aware that the whole question of under-manning had been investigated by a Committee of the Board of Trade.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that if the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade referred to Hansard, and to the debates raised by Mr. Havelock Wilson, he would find that he had taken a deep interest in this matter long before the right hon. Gentleman went to the Board of Trade.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the Manning Committee of 1896 recommended two manning scales—one by the majority and the other by the minority of the Committee—and judged by either of these scales the manning of the "Primrose Hill" could not be declared insufficient. So far as could

    373
    be judged from the facts, the "Primrose Hill" seemed to have been lost through deficiency in navigation.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 252.)

    AYES.

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

    Hammond, John

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Malley, William

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Mara, James

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Shaughnessey, P. J.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Shee, James John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Partington, Oswald

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

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

    Pirie, Duncan, V.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bell, Richard

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Priestley, Arthur

    Black, Alexander William

    Joicey, Sir James

    Reddy, M.

    Boland, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Boyle, James

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Redmond. William (Clare)

    Brigg, John

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Leamy, Edmund

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Burns, John

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Caine, William Sproston

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Caldwell, James

    Lundon, W.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cawley, Frederick

    M'Crae, George

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Strachey, Edward

    Clancy, John Joseph

    M'Govern, T.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cogan, Denis J.

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Mansfield, Horace Rendell

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

    Crean, Eugene

    Minch, Matthew

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Delany, William

    Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dewar, John A (Inverness-shire

    Moss, Samuel

    Weir, James Galloway

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mursaghan, George

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Luke, York, E. R.)

    Duffy, William J.

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

    Field, William

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.

    Dr. Macnamara and Captain Norton.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Dowd, John

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Doughty, George

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Doxford, Sir William T.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Arrol, Sir William

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Bain, Col. James Robert

    Chapman, Edward

    Finch, George H.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

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

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'ch)

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Flower, Ernest

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cox, Irwin Edward B.

    Foster, Henry William

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Blundell, Col. Henry

    Crossley, Sir Savile

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

    Bond, Edward

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnEldon

    Brassey, Albert

    Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlts, S. Geo.

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Digby, J. K D. Wingfield-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bull, William James

    Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y

    Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Round, James

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    M'Calinont, Col. H L B. (Cambs.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Groves, James Grimble

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Hain, Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld G (Midd'x.

    Milton, Viscount

    Spear, John Ward

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Morgan, Hn Fred (Monm'thsh.)

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

    Stroyan, John

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Helder, Augustus

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

    Thomas David A. (Merthyr)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ure, Alexander

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Johnston, Heywood (Sussex)

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbign)

    Penn, John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Percy, Earl

    Webb, Col. Wm. George

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Pierpoint, Robert

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

    Knowles, Lees

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Lawson, John Grant

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

    Purvis, Robert

    Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Rentoul, James Alexander

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

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Wylie, Alexander

    Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol S.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Sir William Walroud and

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Original Question again proposed.
    It being after midnight, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair, to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON, (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk), in the Chair].
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he understood that the Bill
  376
  was not confined to any particular county, but that it would apply to all counties in which the limit had been exceeded.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Yes, Sir, on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant.
  Bill reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered Monday next.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a speech indicates revision by the Member.
INTRODUCED.
Sir Alfred Milner, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., His Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, and Administrator of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, having been created Baron Milner of St. James's, in the County of London, and of Cape Town, in the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, was, in the usual manner, introduced.
Several Lords took the Oath.
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved that the Earl Waldegrave be appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees (the Lord James); agreed to.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  ILKESTON AND HEANOR WATER BOARD BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.

  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  LONDON RIVERSIDE FISH MARKET BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  ELLAND GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  HAMILTON BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  FINCHLEY AND HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Message to the Commons for James Bigwood, Esquire (a member), to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of this House.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1900, by the Hydrographer.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2626. France (New Caledonia).
  No. 2627. Portugal (Beira).

  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
  Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope Observatory to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for the year 1900.

  LOCAL TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Final Report of His Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of local taxation.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1899–1900. (Thirty-sixth number.)
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for 1901–1902.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (INCORPORATION OF EALING).
  Charter of Incorporation of the borough of Ealing, dated 3rd June, 1901.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF WARWICK).
  Order made by the County Council of the county of Warwick on 7th May, 1901, altering certain Polling Districts in the county.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, on 31st January, and sealed on 21st February, 1901, amending Statutes IV., IX., X., XIII., and XVII. of the Statutes of the College.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 109.)

  MEDWAY CONSERVANCY.
  Statement of receipts and expenditure for the year from 25th March, 1900, to 25th March, 1901; Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  TRAMWAYS (CONSENTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition against the amendment of Standing Order No. 22 of the metropolitan borough of Saint Marylebone; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee to consist of five Members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, and to report whether economy and efficiency of administration would be promoted by any change in its constitution or by its amalgamation with any other body, and to request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of their House; the said Message to be considered to-morrow.
  HOUSING OF THE LABOURING CLASSES.
  Message from the Commons that they have come to the following resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, viz., That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the Standing Orders relating to houses occupied by persons of the labouring class and the clauses usually inserted in Private and Local Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills in pursuance thereof; and to report whether any Amendments should be made in such Standing Orders and clauses, and especially whether any and what provision should be made for better securing the rehousing of all persons of the labouring class who may be displaced in connection with the undertakings to which the Bills relate, whether displaced under the powers given by the Bills or otherwise.
NEW BILL.
  COUNTY COUNCILS (BYE-LAWS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with regard to the making of bye-laws by county councils—Was presented by the Earl of North-brook; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 110)
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing (Committee.
  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY BILL. [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill in some respects of considerable importance, but it is one which we can hardly hope to Carry through Parliament during the present session, though I should be very glad indeed if it were found possible to do so. I am very anxious, however, that it should at any rate pass its Second Reading, in order that it may receive thorough consideration. The Bill deals with the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and it proposes to confer upon them the power of meeting together in a single session, of reforming their constitutions, and of amending the representation of the clergy. At present the Convocation of Canterbury certainly does not possess, and the Convocation of York can hardly be said to possess, a sufficient representation of the parochial clergy. In the former Convocation the parochial clergy are represented by only two representatives from each diocese, and very great dissatisfaction has been caused, inasmuch as they are greatly outnumbered by the official members, and by the representatives of the Cathedral Chapters. In the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury every Cathedral has a representative, every archdeacon and dean is a necessary member, but there are only two members to represent the whole of the parochial clergy of the diocese. The result is that the parochial clergy are completely outnumbered, and their voice is practically of no effect. It is felt by the Lower House itself that the parochial clergy should have more representation, and
  218
  it is proposed in this Bill to give power to amend the representation of the clergy. It is not a matter which concerns the power of the Convocations at all; it concerns only their relation to the Church at large, and the machinery by which that relation is made to work. I do not believe that there will be any really great objection to the proposal. It is at present a very serious inconvenience to the working of the Convocations that no canon can be passed for the whole country without going through the four Houses of each Convocation. Very great delay is caused thereby, and with very little reason. If the two Houses could meet together as one synod the proceedings would be considerably shortened. At present a matter may be delayed for several years which is capable of being settled in a short time if only the two Convocations could sit together. It would not add to their power in any way, but it would greatly add to their efficiency. It is not proposed in the slightest way to interfere with the power of the Crown. The Convocations had no power to make canons except with the consent of the Crown, and the canons passed by the Convocations under this Bill will be put before the Crown for confirmation, and will not be valid until confirmed. Thus the relation between Church and State is not touched. That the Church could go a good deal further in the way of reforming the Convocations if they had the power is true enough, and this Bill if it passes will certainly be followed by other proposals. But the Bill now before the House is limited, and except in the two respects mentioned no addition is made by the Bill to the powers of the Convocations. I believe that the Bill will greatly facilitate the work of the Convocations, and I hope the House will not be unwilling to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: The provisions of the Bill are of such a simple and reasonable character that I have no doubt your Lordships will allow it to be read a second time. It is introduced merely for the purpose of securing the more convenient working

  219
  of a very ancient and very important institution. It is felt that if the Convocations could sit together, better conclusions would be arrived at, and more rapidly than is possible under the present state of things.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I think your Lordships will do wisely in allowing this Bill to be read a second time, reserving, of course, to yourselves the power of expressing an opinion at a later stage—either an opinion entirely adverse, or an opinion which shall involve certain alterations in detail—when you will have had a better opportunity of examining the nature of its provisions. I think the most reverend Prelates speak justly when they say that there is nothing on the surface of the Bill which can do any injury to our present polity or can interfere at all with the rights of the public or of the Crown; and therefore it seems to me that it would be quite reasonable to give it a Second Reading.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  BENGAL RAILWAYS—INADEQUATE ENGINEERING WORKS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, who had the following notice on the Paper—namely, To ask the Under Secretary of State for India what has been done in consequence of the report of Mr. Lyall on the inadequacy of the culverts between Dum Dum Junction and Dum Dum Cantonment; to call attention to the inadequacy of the waterway provided during the construction of the Eastern Bengal and the Central Bengal Railways, which traverse the line taken by the natural drainage of the lower provinces, causing the districts to the west of those railways to be waterlogged, while those on the eastern side suffer from the silting up of the numerous rivers which conducted the spill seawards, and producing deplorable mischief to the health of a population exceeding five millions of souls; and to move
  220
  that, in the opinion of this House, an inquiry should be made as to these defects, and remedies suggested by an independent commission of engineers assisted by a civil officer well acquainted with the language and local conditions; also to ask what steps the India Office proposes to take to improve the Indian Public Works Department—said: My Lords, the last speech, or almost the last speech, of the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, reported to this country contrasted the feeling of the India Government, and its regard for the population of India now, with the indifference which, he said, existed at the beginning of the last century. The answer which my noble friend the Under Secretary will give me to-night may either confirm or disprove the accuracy of the Viceroy's belief. As I put down a notice as long ago as last November respecting the inadequate culverts of the Bengal railways, I may expect that the India Office will now be fully prepared with a satisfactory answer. I owe an explanation to the House why this notice was withdrawn and replaced on the Minutes, and for my own sake also I desire to make it. The first information I had of the culverts being inadequate was taken from the Hindu paper Amrita, which complained only of the Bengal Central Railway, and led me to suppose that only the immediate neighbourhood of Dum-Dum barracks was affected. I then thought that whilst English engineers of the Public Works Department had proved so inefficient, the recent limitation by the Secretary of State for India of two annual appointments of Indian students from Cooper's Hill College was neither justifiable nor well timed. Then there occurred the incident of the dismissal of the seven professors from Cooper's Hill. Lord Kelvin and others eminent in science complained of this, and blew the iron to white heat. It had therefore to be struck before it grew cool, and I wrote a letter on the subject to the Morning Post, in which I said that this letter would answer the purpose of the notice, which I then withdrew from the Minutes. In that letter I complained of the Secretary of State for India for having trampled upon the Queen's Proclamation of 1858, by his assertion that Cooper's Hill was established for the

  221
  teaching of English boys. I complained of his denouncing the instruction given at Cooper's Hill, whilst he and his predecessors in the India Office had repeatedly praised that institution on the annual occasions when the Secretaries of State made a speech to the college, and to the successful candidates for employment in the Indian Public Works Department. I do not remember ever to have read in any of the valedictory speeches delivered at Cooper's Hill any admonition to the students as to their responsibilities, or warning what to avoid when transferred from college to the attractions and temptations of life in an Indian station. I was at the last meeting of the East India Directors with the students of Haileybury, and remember how the Directors endeavoured to impress upon the young men the duties and responsibilities they were about to incur. If the present Secretary of State is unequal to this task—and indeed he has disqualified himself by his collision with the teaching body—he had better entrust this duty to Lord Kelvin, or to some other man of science.
  About a month after I had withdrawn my first notice, I learned that the mischief caused by bad engineering was very much more extensive than I had at first supposed. The Eastern Bengal Railway, as well as the Bengal Central Railway, both traverse land which slopes towards the Bay of Bengal, and obstruct the escape of the rain-water, so as sometimes to cause the water to lie eight or nine feet deep on the upper side of these railways. On the lower side of the railway towards the sea the watercourses, deprived of their former flow of water, get silted up, the country is waterlogged, sodden, and fever-stricken. I have read that as much as thirty-two square miles of land are affected by this interference with the natural drainage. Public meetings have been held, and memorials were forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in December last. Since then, in April, questions were asked in the Bengal Council by Mr. Bose as to the inadequate waterways, and most unsatisfactorily answered by Mr. Buckley, who said:—
  "The waterways were provided to meet normal flood, and an entirely unprecedented
  222
  flood, such as that of last year, could not be met at any reasonable cost."
  This answer is untrue, since the flooding of the land occurs every year, and the village of Sinthee has suffered from malaria since the railways were constructed. Besides, when are floods normal? When is nature normal? Those who know Scotland must know how spates vary in volume, yet in that country there are not such heavy downpours to be provided against as occur in the tropics. With the leave of the House, I will read an article on this subject from the Statesman of May 1st:—
  "The reply given on the 30th March by the Hon. Mr. Buckley, in the Local Council, to the questions of the Hon. Mr. Bose regarding the obstruction stated to be caused by the embankment of the Bengal Central Railway to a number of villages in the neighbourhood of Dum Dum, seems to betray a very inadequate appreciation of the responsibility under which the Government lies in the matter. Mr. Bose asked whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to the serious suffering and damage caused to the inhabitants by this obstruction during the heavy rains of September last, and to a Report on the subject made by the magistrate of the twenty-four Pergunnahs after inspection of the locality; whether the Sub-divisional Officer of Baraset had reported that this portion of the line was a serious obstruction to the drainage of the country; whether the Government would state what steps had been taken to remedy the defects pointed out, and with what result; and whether the Government would direct an enquiry and call for a Report as to the adequacy or otherwise of the culverts to carry off the water during the rains in other portions of the line referred to. Mr. Buckley's reply was to the effect that the attention of the Government had been drawn to the results of the heavy rainfall of September last in the neighbourhood of Dum Dum; that the waterways were provided to meet a normal flood; that an unprecedented flood, such as that of last year, could not be met at a reasonable cost; and that the question of providing increased waterway within reasonable limits was under inquiry. It will be observed, in the first place, that the reply contained no specific reference to the Report of Mr. Lyall or the Sub-divisional Officer of Baraset, though Mr. Bose had asked distinctly whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to these Reports; and that it ignored altogether the question what steps had been taken to remedy the mischief, and with what result—from which it may reasonably be inferred that, as indeed is notoriously the case, no such steps have been taken. As it was six months since the catastrophe caused by the heavy floods of last year had occurred, and only a little more than two months remained before the rains of the present year might be expected to set in, this in itself would

  223
  seem to imply culpable apathy on the part of the Government. This, however, is not the most disturbing feature of Mr. Buckley's reply. Taken together, the first three of the four statements of which it consists are clearly intended to suggest that the existing waterway is sufficient to carry off the flood waters in a normal season, and that but for the unprecedented floods last year, no serious inconvenience would have been felt. This, however, is not the view of the matter suggested either by the Report of the Magistrate of the 24 Pergunnahs or by that of the Sub-divisional Officer of Baraset, and it is directly opposed to the published statements of a large number of the respectable inhabitants of the villages affected. What Mr. Lyall says is:—'I inspected the locality yesterday morning, and I have no hesitation in saying that the culverts between Dum Dum Junction and Dum Dum Cantonment are ridiculously inadequate for the water they have to carry off. The difference in the water level is nearly two feet at the openings themselves, and the water is roaring through as in a mill sluice. I attribute a good deal of the unhealthiness of Sinthee (through which I rode) and the insecurity of the crops to the north-west of the Bengal Central Line to this cause, and I think the Bengal Central Railway Company should be called on to provide adequate waterways. I would therefore suggest that the matter should be referred to the consulting engineer of Government railways. 'The Sub-divisional officer of Baraset also reports that this portion of the railway is a serious obstruction to the drainage of the country.' It is true that it was during the floods of last autumn that Mr. Lyall visited the place; but no one who reads the first sentence of his letter can suppose for a moment that he considered the culverts between Dum Dum Junction and Dum Dum Cantonments sufficient to carry off the flood water under normal conditions. He would hardly describe culverts which were inadequate only in the case of an unprecedented or even an unusually heavy flood as 'ridiculously inadequate.' The inhabitants of the neighbourhood who attended the public meeting held at Gorui in December last state positively in their petition to the Lieutenant-Governor that since the construction of the Bengal Central Line the flood waters, which come from a great distance, and pass through the culverts in the Barrackpore Trunk Road, 'cannot pass freely towards the Salt Lake, and thereby remain stagnant in the Sinthee fields for days together,' and that thus not only are the young paddy plants annually destroyed, but malaria is created. Prom the last part of Mr. Buckley's answer it is apparently to be inferred that, though the Government are not prepared to insist on the provision of waterway sufficient to carry off a flood like that of last year, they recognise the liability of the railway company to provide some increase of waterway. This, however, is much too vague to be satisfactory. We would ask the Government plain questions. Is it, or is it not their duty, when they sanction a railway, to insist upon its being so constructed as not to obstruct the natural drainage of the country
  224
  under normal conditions to an extent injurious to its agriculture or to, the convenience or health of its inhabitants? If, through miscalculation or any other cause, a railway has been made which causes such obstruction, is it or is it not their duty to insist on a rectification of the error? If, as we do not doubt, both these questions must be answered in the affirmative, then no question of the cost arises. The only question is of the degree of obstruction which; is reasonably to be considered seriously injurious, to the agriculture, convenience, or health of the tract affected."
  I consulted an English civil engineer as to the injury caused by inadequate culverts, but without mentioning India or the extent of the land affected. A, Bengal civilian had written to me: "They (the railway company) do not care for fever, and they do care for expense," and in writing to my friend I had shortened this into "They prefer fever to expense." The engineer replied that, he knew of a case where land had become boggy, but that any proceedings to obtain a remedy would cost more than the land was worth, and advised a friendly application to the traffic manager. He also evidently thought an. English company was in question—perhaps the Great Northern—as part of it skirts an aguish country, and he urgently advised me not to say they preferred fever to expense. The Bengal Government appears to be less sensitive, and if it persists in doing nothing it must accept the verdict that it prefers, fever to expense. If the Under Secretary of State for India will engage that additional and sufficient water ways shall be immediately provided, I will withdraw the motion; otherwise he will have to negative it, and further destroy the claims of the Bengal Government to any care for the health and well-being of its subjects.
  I now come to the last question on the Notice Paper: What steps the India Office will take to improve the Public Works Department or the engineering work in India. That this Department is bad and requires improvement is undeniable. It is usually called the Public Waste Department in India. As long; as I can remember it has constantly been said that barrack walls erected by it fell in, that railway bridges fell down. The fact of Cooper's Hill College having been established about thirty years ago shows that the engineering in India was defective. In this country there is now

  225
  other school for civil engineers than Cooper's Hill College. In this country engineers learn their profession as architects, and lawyers learn theirs, by entering the offices of men already eminent in those professions. English engineers and their work stand highest in the world. It is enough to mention the Eddystone Lighthouse, the Tubular Bridge, and the Forth Bridge. Why, then, should the Public Works Department of India be so far behind the engineering of this country? A short time ago a Hindu gentleman was with me looking at the Holyhead breakwater, the upper part of which has not required any renewing since it was constructed. I asked him why the Public Works Department of India could not turn out work like that. He replied: "Because they are not responsible to anyone, and they have no sympathy with the people of the country." This, I believe, is the real reason, for they do not belong to the Civil Service; they are paid less, and lately some of them have complained that they have not received the pay that was promised them. The system of educating them is bad; they do not gradually work their way up through the offices of civil engineers who already possess established reputations. They come out from Cooper's Hill with theoretical knowledge only, and, like too many of the Civil Service, are put into places of responsibility and requiring experience at too early an age. The condition of the Bengal railways proves the great want of engineering knowledge and skill or of zeal, since the original defects of these railways have not been remedied. One of these railways was constructed before Cooper's Hill was established, the other a good deal later. The Secretary of State has admitted the inefficiency of the Public Works Department, since he has considered that it might be advisable to close Cooper's Hill. Some of the earlier failures of barracks and bridges may have been due to their having been entrusted to the Royal Engineers, who had been educated for military works and not for civil engineering. I asked a friend who had been twenty years ago at Bombay what he remembered of this. He replied that he remembered the failure of barracks and bridges, and that the Cooper's Hill men
  226
  derided the Sappers for these failures. But the Cooper's Hill men have not done any better since, as shown by the Bengal railways, and the wish of the Secretary of State to abolish them. One of Mrs. Steel's books, "The Potter's Thumb," is in part a pamphlet against the Public Works Department. One remedy would seem to be that in future for any work of importance an English civil engineer of reputation should be appointed, and that he should be provided with a staff of Indian subordinates, who would naturally have an interest in the country, and as they would remain in India would be interested in the durability of the works they were engaged upon. In short, the recent limitation of two appointments annually to Indian students at Cooper's Hill should be reversed, appointments of Englishmen to the Public Works Department limited, and as many Indian pupils of Cooper's Hill employed as possible. Both for railway and canal works knowledge of the language and sympathy with the inhabitants are necessary in order to acquire the necessary knowledge of what is normal, and especially of what is exceptional in floods, but yet which must be provided against. All are agreed that a larger number of Indians must be admitted into the Civil Service of their own country—because they expect it; because the Proclamation of 1858 must no longer remain a dead letter; because the pensions spent out of the country are helping to bring India to bankruptcy; because the engineering profession is the one in which the fewest objections can be made to the admission of Indians. Race prejudices or partialities cannot be shown in civil engineering as in administrative posts, and there is no connection between engineering and sedition.
  This was all that I had intended to say; but I do not gather from the countenance of my noble friend the Under Secretary of State for India that he has much sympathy with the question, or that I may expect a very favourable reply. I would like to refer him to the report of the Sanitary Commissioner, in which that official states that—
  "In the Bengal-Orissa group the most malarious stations were Barrackpore and Dum Dum. The medical officer in charge at the former says that it is situated on a low

  227
  lying alluvial soil, with insufficient drainage, surrounded by rice cultivation and stagnant tanks; but he acknowledges that the drainage has been greatly improved by the measures completed in 1898, and to that attributes the reduction of malaria in 1899. At Dum Dum the soil is said to be water-logged. In some station reports the inter-fluctuations in the diagnosis of ague, simple continued fever, and influenza are noticed."
  The newspaper article containing the extract from the sanitary inspector's report which I have just read, states that the railway bund, which acts as a breakwater to the floods, should be pierced at more frequent intervals than a space of twenty feet to every two miles. Can your Lordships imagine two miles with only one exit for water? Barrackpore and Dum Dum both contain a large number of troops, so that it is not only the health of the villagers but also that of the troops which ought to be considered. I contend that the villagers would be morally justified in breaking down these culverts. As to the superior officer who commands a Dum Dum, what should he do? It all depends on his education. If his education was entirely military he would probably wait for orders; but if he remembers the Roman maxim, Salus populi, suprema, lex, he would be inclined to send a number of sappers with the requisite quantity of dynamite and blow up the culverts. I move the motion standing in my name.
  Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, an inquiry should be made as to the defects of the waterway provided during the construction of the Eastern Bengal and the Central Bengal Railways, which traverse the line taken by the natural drainage of the lower provinces, causing the districts to the west of those railways to be waterlogged, while those on the eastern side suffer from the silting up of the numerous rivers which conducted the spill seawards, and producing deplorable mischief to the health of a population exceeding five millions of souls; and the remedies suggested by an independent commission of engineers, assisted by a civil officer well acquainted with the language and local conditions.—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARD- WICKE): My Lords, the noble Lord has detained your Lordships at some length on a subject which I trust I shall be able to deal with in a very few words. The noble Lord has made it a little difficult for me to reply as shortly as I should wish, because he has divided his motion into four parts. He commences with a question, and goes on to call attention to certain engineering defects in connection with the Eastern and Central Bengal Railways. The noble Lord then moves a motion, and in the last three lines asks a further question regarding the Indian Public Works Department. Perhaps it would be convenient to the House if I briefly recite the facts of the case to which the question refers. There was an unprecedented rainfall in Calcutta and the surrounding district in September last, the rainfall between the 19th and 22nd amounting to 38·6 inches. Such a rainfall had never been known there before. It is not, therefore, remarkable that certain culverts were found inadequate to carry the water away; but, even if there had been no railway existing at all, the inconvenience and damage would have been equally severe. It is true that the inhabitants of the surrounding district suffered considerably, but how the noble Lord arrives at a population of five millions I am at a loss to understand. Dum Dum is a very short distance from Calcutta, the inhabitants of which number under one million, while the population of the adjacent villages is somewhere about 400,000. The damage in Calcutta was far in excess of any resulting from the inadequacy of these culverts. The Government of India at once instituted an inquiry into the supposed inadequacy of the culverts, with the result that an additional forty lineal feet will be added to the waterway, and this will be done at the expense of the company. I hope this statement will satisfy the noble Lord, and that he will not think it necessary to press his motion to a division, though I believe under the rules of the House it is necessary to have the motion seconded before the House can be divided. With regard to the last question of the noble Lord, I think the Government of India and my noble friend the Secretary of State will require some further instance of the inefficiency of the Public Works Depart-

  229
  ment than that to which the noble Lord refers before taking any steps in the direction indicated.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Earl asks me how I arrived at a population of five millions. I have the number on the authority of a Bengal civilian who knows the country well. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he means that the twenty feet culverts will be extended to forty feet, or that any more culverts will be made.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I understand that the total number of feet of extra waterway that is required is forty, and that it will be distributed over a distance of one and a half miles.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I think that will be satisfactory for the present, until experience shows that it is not so. I therefore withdraw my motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  ARMY ORGANISATION—CONSTITUTION OF PROPOSED ARMY CORPS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State the question standing in my name, namely—Of how many brigades and divisions is each of the six proposed army corps to consist; and are the respective staffs to be in accordance with the regulations for an army in the field.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): The proposed army corps will consist for peace or war of the number of divisions and brigades laid down in "War Establishments, 1900"—that is, of three divisions and six brigades each. In peace time, in the last three army corps, the divisions and brigades, being partly composed of troops of the Auxiliary forces, will only be completely organised as such during the drill season. With regard to staffs, those of the first three army corps will contain all the necessary brigade and divisional commanders, with their subordinates, in accordance with the regulations for an army in the field, with the modification that there are
  230
  certain appointments incident to field operations—of which commandant at headquarters, provost-marshal, and director of telegraphs are instances—not required in time of peace, which will not be made till mobilisation is ordered. The last three army corps will contain so much of their complete staff as is necessary for peace and the nucleus of the total staff for war, but in every case the whole of the troops and the staffs within the area of his command will be under the control of the army corps commander, who will recommend whatever steps he thinks proper for filling up the skeleton staffs during manœuvres or when the troops are called out for training.

  DECLARATION AGAINST TRAN-SUBSTANTIATION.
  The Lords following to be named of the Select Committee, namely:—

  L. Chancellor.

  The Lord Privy Seal (M. Salisbury).

  D. Argyll.

  E. Spencer.

  E. Cadogan.

  E. Crewe.

  V. Gordon (E. Aberdeen).

  L. Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl).

  L. Tweedmouth.

  The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 25th instant, at Twelve of the clock, and to appoint their own chairman.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five of the clock till to-morrow, half past Ten of the clock.