Sitting of 14 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  WALLASEY IMPROVEMENT BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. STRAGHEYsaid he wished briefly to explain why he had placed a new clause on the Paper with reference to this Bill. When the Bill was read a second time, he carried an Instruction by a majority of over seventy making certain provisions regarding workmen's superannuation come under the control of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Although the Instruction had been carried out, the clause inserted by the promoters was not one which he could assent to, but he need not go into details, as the promoters were now quite ready to accept his new clause, which was drawn up as a model clause, and which would be put in various other Bills if necessary.
  New Clause—
  "Any scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this part of this Act shall not come into operation until the council shall in respect of that fund have been registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the provisions of that Act (except section forty-one) so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part of this Act shall apply as if (a) the council were a society to which that Act applies and were the Trustees of such society; (b) as if the scheme were the rules of such society; (c) as if the superannuation or provident funds were the funds of such society; and (d) as if the contributors to the fund were the members of such society."
  —brought up and read the first and second time.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. Strachey.)
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid he would like to explain the position of the promoters in regard to this new clause. They regarded it as substantially the same as the one they had inserted. He explained to the House, when the matter was before it on the last occasion, that Clause 41 would have limited any lump sum payable to £200, or an annuity to £50, and that would have made any superannuation scheme brought out tinder the Bill inapplicable to the case of the higher officials. However, as the new clause substantially agreed with the views of the promoters, the difference being only one of form, he was glad to say he was enabled to accept it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (LONDON) BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
LORD BALCARRESsaid it was his intention to have moved that this Bill be read a second time this day three months, but the promoters and himself had agreed that it would be more satisfactory to discuss the question at issue upon an Instruction to the Committee, and under those circumstances he begged to withdraw his motion, and to intimate that the motion would be discussed this day week.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Balcarres.)
MR. RICHARDSsaid he represented those whose original intention it was to oppose the Bill altogether unless a compromise could be effected between them and the Christ's Hospital authorities with regard to the real points at issue. It had been stated that those who were seeking to prevent the authorities from building upon a burial ground and destroying a most valuable open space were endeavouring in that way to prevent the authorities from securing the necessary funds to support the institution in its new home at Horsham. Many of them would have liked to oppose the scheme from the beginning, but, as the Charity Commissioners had forced the hands of Christ's Hospital, and the authorities had built a school at Horsham, it would be absurd to ask the House to refuse to give the necessary permission to the Foundation to sell what was required for the re-endowment and for the payment of the expenses to which they had been put. Far from attempting in any way to hamper the hospital, their only object was to secure the preservation of the cloisters and the two open spaces now existing.
SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEexpressed a hope that the assertions

387
of the hon. Member who had last spoken would not be regarded by the outside public as accurate. When the matter came up for discussion he thought he would be able to show the House that the statements were absolutely unfounded.
MR. MELLORagreed with the action taken, and pointed out that it would have been impossible for him to support a motion for the rejection of the Bill.
CAPTAIN NORTON, as one greatly interested in the matter through his constituents, entirely concurred in the statements made by the noble Lord and the hon. Member for East Finsbury. Any remarks he wished to make he would reserve, he added, until the Instruction was under discussion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (LONDON) BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)

  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  *MR. JEFFREYS, who had on the Paper the following instruction—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Improvement No. 5 from Part III. of the Bill," said he would not take up the time of the House by moving the Instruction which stood in his name. He understood that the Chairman of Committees was going to move that Standing Orders be suspended, and that the Bill be allowed to go to a Select Committee upstairs. He ought to say with regard to the motion on the Paper that the Bill was not opposed in the House of Lords, and neither had it been opposed in this House hitherto, because the vicar and churchwardens had no knowledge that part of the churchyard was going to be taken by the tramway scheme. Unfortunately, in this matter one gentleman was acting in two interests—for the corporation and for the churchwardens, and owing to a misunderstanding no petition was laid against the Bill. It was found, therefore, that unless he moved an instruction in the House the Bill would have passed through unopposed, and the
  388
  tramway would have carried away part of the churchyard. As he had before said, he understood the Chairman of Committees was now going to propose that Standing Order No. 83 be put in force, so as to enable the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee upstairs. Under those circumstances he would not move his instruction.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)said the hon. Member had quite accurately described the compromise which had been arranged. He intended to report the Bill as an opposed Bill, and at the same time he would put down a motion enabling his hon. friend to present a petition. That petition would be referred to a Committee upstairs, who would hear the case.

TITLES OF PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
On the motion for the consideration of the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders No. 1 Bill—
SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he thought it would be a matter of great convenience to hon. Members if some means were afforded them of identifying the work proposed to be undertaken under Bills bearing these titles. He had been put to considerable inconvenience in trying to get the information for himself.
*MR. SPEAKER: The difficulty was pointed out some time ago, and as a result it was decided to give the information in the fortnightly lists of private Bills with which hon. Members are supplied. I will, however, consider whether it is possible to do anything further.

TITLES OF PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (NO. 2) BILL. (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. NOLANsaid that when he saw the title of this Bill and ascertained the objects with which it

  389
  was being promoted he had some doubt as to what the effects of the measure would be, having regard to the fact that in several well known towns in England, and notably in Liverpool, where a very large district of working class buildings had been swept away, years had been allowed to elapse before suitable houses were provided for the persons thus displaced. He had provided himself with a copy of the Bill, and he found that even the promoters of the Bill themselves granted a large part of the case he stated against it, inasmuch as they proposed a statute to provide for a certain number of those they dispossessed. Of the 10,000 people whose dwellings they were going to pull down 3,000 would be left without provision being made for them, and would have to go outside the district in which they were employed to find accommodation. It was only fair that the House should ask the promoters of the Bill to take it back and amend the section so as to remove that grievance. He had great sympathy with the Bill, and would like to see the dwellings of the working classes improved, and more comfort provided in all large towns. There was not the slightest objection to the avowed intention of the Bill being carried out, but the Corporation of Leeds should not be allowed to carry out the work until they had provided ample accommodation for the persons whom they proposed to dispossess. It would, no doubt, be urged that the commissioner who held the local inquiry had reported in favour of the scheme, but he suggested that that gentleman, who, it might be taken for granted, was highly respectable and intelligent, of a necessity would only be brought into contact with those who favoured the scheme. Such gentlemen had seldom or never had an opportunity of meeting the people whose interests were affected, and whose homes were to be destroyed. If, for instance, the working classes of the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who had been affected by the clearance now being effected, had known what the result would be, that they were going to be driven out and no provision was to be made for them, and that they would have had to go out of the district altogether to find a home as best they could, it would have taken more than the united force of the Liverpool police to have evicted them. The
  390
  working classes really did not know the meaning of these Bills or the effect of them until it was too late, and consequently they did not enter their protest at the right time. The Bill before the House was one which should be opposed by all the representatives of labour in the House, and he ventured to raise a humble protest against it, because if the scheme was carried out in its present form it would involve a very serious loss and damage upon a large section of the community. The area was declared to be unsanitary, and for all he knew it might, or it might not, be unsanitary, but against that statement he would urge upon the House the fact that the average school attendance in that district was higher than in any other part of Leeds, and everyone knew very well that in unsanitary districts epidemics broke out and raged with great virulence, causing all the schools to be closed, which must of a necessity reduce the average school attendance. He, however, did not profess to be able to deal with that aspect of the case. He rested his case upon the fact, which was clearly stated in the Bill by the promoters themselves, that they did not intend to provide accommodation for thousands of the people whom it was proposed under the Bill to deprive of their homes. He begged that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  MR. NANNETTI, in seconding the Amendment, complained that for some time past schemes for the clearance of unsanitary areas had been put forward by local authorities and various corporations in which insufficient provision was made for the rehousing of the persons dispossessed. The result was that people were removed from the dangers of overcrowding in one place only to create veritable plague spots in another. The House of Commons ought to be very chary indeed of giving its sanction to any scheme unless adequate provision was made for the accommodation of the people to be dispossessed before they were dispossessed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the objections which had been raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment were very natural objections in the minds of anybody who had had experience of clearing unsanitary areas, but they referred rather to defects in the various Acts for the housing of the working classes than to any action of the particular corporation concerned in the scheme under consideration. His object in rising, however, was to ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider a hardship which had arisen in this case. Rightly or wrongly, a large number of the property owners concerned, when the Local Government Board inquiry was held, were under the impression that it was the preliminary inquiry, and, indeed, when they applied to the inspector to be heard their application was refused. As a result of this decision there were scheduled for the purposes of this improvement scheme certain properties which it was contended could be proved to be in themselves perfectly sanitary, and the owners felt that it was rather hard that such properties should be taken from them by the Leeds Corporation at an "unsanitary" price, and that they should be penalised because of unsanitary property over which they had no control. He had placed on the Paper an Instruction, the effect of which would be to give these property owners a right to be heard before the Committee as to whether this scheme was a scheme within the meaning of the Act. By giving his favourable consideration to the matter when it came before him, the President of the Local Government Board would be doing an act of justice to these property owners, who, after all, were not responsible for the scheme of the Leeds Corporation. The scheme itself was a good one, and the corporation deserved the highest credit for taking in hand so large an undertaking. That, however, was no reason why injustice should be inflicted upon anyone, and therefore he hoped the property owners would be heard in their own defence before the Committee.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid that five years ago
  392
  the Leeds Corporation obtained power to set aside the almost universal law in this country against the erection of back to back houses.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the byelaws of the city of Leeds could not now be debated.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid that in that case he would move an Instruction at a later stage to the Committee that they should amend the Act so as to forbid the building of back to back houses in, the future.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that the real objection to this Bill was that it proposed to dishouse 9,000 and to rehouse only 6,000 people. He did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should insist upon an equal number of people being housed on the site being cleared, as that would at once do away with the benefits to be derived from the scheme. He suggested to the President of the Local Government Board that he should insist upon a sufficient number of houses being erected within the boundary of the city of Leeds equal to the number of those who had been displaced. It was a very serious matter to turn 3,000 people adrift without making provision for their requirements, and it simply meant an increase of rent and the transforming of some other district into a slum area.
  MR. CAUTLEYcontended that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee for consideration. One of the main objections was that this was not a scheme within the meaning of the Act, but the property owners would have an opportunity of appearing before the Committee in opposition to the scheme. The Local Government Board were of opinion that all the necessary requirements had been complied with, and they were of opinion that it was a scheme worthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. He thought that the House would no more think of going behind the decision of this Local Government Board inquiry than it would think of going behind the Standing Orders. He hoped the House would consent to a Select Committee, before

  393
  which any property owner could appear and oppose the scheme on its merits if he thought he could satisfy the Committee that the Bill ought to be rejected. Any private Bill could be opposed before the Committee in the regular form. He sincerely sympathised with the property owners, and he did not agree that their property should be taken for the good of the community without adequate compensation, any more than the property of other classes of the community. This was a great scheme which had been undertaken by the Leeds Corporation, and it was the largest scheme of this sort that had ever come before Parliament. The justification for it was to be found in the very heavy death rate.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The hon. Member for South Louth, who moved the rejection of this Bill, did so on the ground that the Corporation of Leeds, in taking power to clear an insanitary area in that city, did not make sufficient provision for housing the working classes displaced by the scheme. I do not think that that contention will be found to be correct when the statistics are examined. In this case the number of persons of the working classes who will be displaced under the scheme is 9,234. The order now under consideration provides for rehousing on the sites of existing buildings 6,000 persons, leaving a balance to be provided for in other ways of 3,234. There is suitable house room vacant within half a mile of the area to accommodate 1,070, and beyond the half mile but within a mile sufficient for a further 1,500, leaving 664 unaccounted for. Of this total 616 are provided for in model lodging houses, and therefore the actual number which can be said to be unprovided for is only 48. I do not think that the House can possibly regard that as unsatisfactory provision for the working classes. The hon. Gentleman also stated that the Local Government Board inspector during his inquiry came only into contact with the officials of the Corporation and not with the working classes. I doubt whether that could ever be an accurate description of an inquiry held by an inspector of the
  394
  Local Government Board, but it is most certainly an inaccurate description in this case. A long inquiry was held by the inspector at Leeds, and witnesses of every sort and condition were heard. The inspector himself spent considerable time personally inspecting every portion of the land and every court, alley, and street within the area affected, and the recommendation he makes to me is based not alone upon the evidence received from the medical officer of health and other experts, but also upon his own personal experience after close investigation conducted by himself and after a careful examination of all the property. Therefore, I do not think it can fairly be alleged that the inspector only came into contact with the Corporation officials. My hon. friend the Member for South West Manchester alleges that some property owners in Leeds have not been heard, and that they will suffer an injustice through the operation of the penal clauses of the Act of 1890. When my hon. friend states that some of the property owners were not heard at the inquiry, I do not think he has been correctly informed. The point was raised before the inspector whether or not this was a scheme within the meaning of the Act. The inspector decided that that was a question for the Local Government Board or Parliament to decide, and with that point he declined to deal, but he did not decline to hear the owners in regard to the scheme as it affected their property. I think the point raised was one for the Local Government Board to decide, and Parliament could reverse their decision if hon. Members disagreed with it. I do, however, hope that this House will pause before it consents to check in any way the work of large corporations in their efforts to deal with insanitary areas. There is an additional danger in rejecting such schemes as this, and it is that if Parliament in ail cases insists upon the full number of those displaced being provided for before the areas are allowed to be dealt with, I venture to say that you will make the work of clearing insanitary areas practically impossible. There is, fortunately, accommodation within easy reach of the affected area, and nobody could suggest that it would be a hardship for working men to go half a mile or so further. I admit that the

  395
  scheme is important as a precedent; as my hon. friend has said, it is the largest scheme which has ever been brought forward under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, but I know of no word or line in that Act which limits the size of a scheme. It has been said that the scheme does not comply with the Act: because it does not definitely lay down what the Corporation propose to do, but the Corporation have made a full and complete plan as to what they propose to do with this insanitary area when it is cleared. I do not hesitate to say that from the point of view of getting rid of many insanitary houses the scheme is a right and sensible one, and I hope the House will see its way to adopt it.
  *MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid the Bill had been attacked from different points of view. But he could assure his hon. friend the Member for Northwich that it was not intended to erect, back to back, houses on the area in question. He quite agreed that the clearing of such a large area was a matter of very serious consideration; but it was obvious that the House could not at that stage give a ripe judgment on all the details of the Bill. The scheme was promoted by the city council of Leeds, the members of which were practically unanimous in favour of it, and was supported by the Trades Council. A full local inquiry, lasting eight days, had been made into the scheme, and the Local Government Board had been satisfied on the technical points that the provisions of the various Housing Acts had been fulfilled. The Bill had the support of the Government. There was nothing in the Acts requiring full details of the scheme to be embodied in the Provisional Order, for that would be impossible. In these circumstances, he hoped the House, having regard to the great necessity that existed for this Bill, and to the fact that the mortality in the area was 40 per cent. higher than in the remainder of the city, would read the measure a second time and send it upstairs for the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. FIELDsaid that in his own constituency he had had some experience of the corporation
  396
  pulling down houses of poor people and neglecting to provide accommodation for those dispossessed. The result had been that, instead of reducing the insanitary condition of the poor people in Dublin, they had removed these poor people from comparatively good houses to worse houses in other parts of the city. A colleague of his had received a letter from a working man who lived in Leeds, who said that before any corporation was allowed to pull down an enormous number of low-rented houses they ought to undertake to build other houses, and have them completed before commencing demolishing the old houses. A deputation of working men had laid these views before the Sanitary Committee of the Leeds Corporation, but he had not yet heard whether that Committee had reported on the matter. He did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but, having an interest in the working classes everywhere, he thought they were entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the representatives of the working classes had been consulted in this matter as well as the proprietors of property. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the proposal of the Corporation of Leeds was to erect immense flats, and that the rent to be charged for houses in these flats for working men would be 4s. to 6s. per week. That was a good deal higher rent than they were paying at present—namely, from 1s. 10d. to 3s. He thought the corporation ought to provide accommodation for poor people at the same rate they paid at present. He did not wish to occupy the time of the House much longer, because he knew that these private Bill discussions were always looked upon as a waste of time. He did not take that view, but thousands of poor people were affected by these schemes, and very frequently the time of the House was devoted to much less important subjects. He merely wanted the right hon. the President of the Local Government Board to assure the House that these poor room-holders would be heard before the Committee, those who, when evicted, would have no place to go to. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in Paris and other continental cities, before houses

  397
  inhabited by working people were pulled down in order to make grand boulevards, houses were erected for the accommodation of the people dispossessed.
  MR. CREANsaid he had had some experience on this subject, and therefore he intervened in the discussion to oppose the Bill. One of the great defects of the scheme was that the houses were to be pulled down without other houses being provided; and he had known the hardships to which poor people were exposed by that process. Two questions ought to be answered before the Bill was read a second time. First, where were they going to put the unfortunate people dispossessed by the demolition of the existing houses; and second, what class of houses were to be provided for them? As a general rule, corporations did away with what they considered houses which were an injury to public health, but they took no consideration of the unfortunate people whom they displaced. They only built
  houses which attracted a better class of people into the district, and drove the people dispossessed into other districts. They should see that the rents of the better class of houses to be erected would be such that they could be paid by the poor people dispossessed. His experience was that the rents were generally doubled. In fixing the rents of these houses the corporation generally took into consideration both the sinking fund and the interest on the first outlay, and so they made the incoming tenant pay for both, although when the cost was paid off by the sinking fund they retained the property. That was not justice; it was iniquitous, and should be stopped. He hoped the scheme would be inquired into in its entirety, including the question of the rent of the outgoing tenant and the rent of the incoming tenant.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 253.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Denny, Colonel

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Aird, Sir John

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bull, William James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burns, John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Caine, William Sproston

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Caldwell, James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cameron, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Edwards, Frank

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Elibank, Master of

  Austin, Sir John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Emmott, Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christchurch

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr'

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Channing, Francis Allston

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

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Chapman, Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Coddington, Sir William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bill, Charles

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Flower, Ernest

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Forster, Henry William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Crombie, John Williams

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Garfit, William.

  Brassey, Albert

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Brigg, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Gore, Hon. GRCOrmsby-(Salop

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Russell, T. W.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  M'Crae, George

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Gretton, John

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon Lord G (Midd'x

  Malcolm, Ian

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Spear, John Ward

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Lord (Lord)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Strachey, Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Stroyan, John

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Holland, William Henry

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Myers, William Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Norman, Henry

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

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

  Joicey, Sir James

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Partington, Oswald

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walton, John (Barnsley)

  Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn Sir U.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Percy, Earl

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Lambert, George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Purvis, Robert

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

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

  Leng, Sir John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

  Levy, Maurice

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Cautley.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Delany, William

  Blake, Edward

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Boland, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Boyle, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Crean, Eugene

  Field, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Reddy, M.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Redmond. William (Clare)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lundon, W.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Minch, Matthew

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nolan and Mr. Nannetti.

  Mooney, John J.

  O'Malley, William

  Murnaghan, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  MR. BILL reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Derby Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. William Feast was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. William Feast do attend the said Committee to-day.
  Ordered, That Mr. William Feast do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills to-day.

  LONDON BRIDGE WIDENING BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  OAKHAM WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  BIRMINGHAM (CITY) TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC. BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING Of THE WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  [UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.

  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 83, relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the Bournemouth Corporation Bill [Lords], though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Private Bill.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  RHYL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills: That, there being no business ready for their consideration, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Great Northern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Blackrock, Dungannon, Kildare, and Waterford." Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the authority of the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bexhill Water and Gas, High Wycombe Gas, Portsea Gas, Slough Gas, and Woking District Gas." Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Elland-cum-Greetland Gas Company; to amend the Acts relating to that Company; and for other purposes." Elland Gas Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
  ELLAND GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  MR. BILL reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Derby Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Dr. William Henry Wright was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Dr. William Henry Wright do attend the said Committee upon Monday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Dr. William Henry Wright do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills upon Monday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petitions for Alteration of Law; from Burton-on-Trent; and, Stapenhill; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Ystradyfodwg, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against, from Rochdale; Taunton; Burton-on-Trent; and, South Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Hove; Hackney; Colwyn Bay; Street; Crewe (three); Gloucester (two); Stoke Newington (two); Stepney; Erith; South Hackney; South Hornsey; Upton Park; Belvedere (two); Kettering; Blacko; Westbury; Limehouse; Uttoxeter; Onslow Square; Edgbaston; South Kensington; Bethnal Green; and Southwold; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Strath-kinness; Eday; Nenthorn; Greenlaw; Persie; and Helensburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petitions against, from Kirkintilloch; and Lairg; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Reports by the Chief Inspector of the Northern and Southern Divisions of Scotland for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Minute, dated 14th June, 1901, providing for the distribution of the sum available for Secondary or Technical (including Agricultural) Education under the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  Copy presented of Forty-fourth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 AND 1888.
  Copy presented, of Special Report by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.
  Penge Electric Lighting Order; [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway Order, 1900 (Mid-Suffolk Light Railway (Amendment) Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the Rural district of Pateley Bridge, in the West Riding of the county of York, from Pateley Bridge to Loft-house (Nidd Valley Light Railway Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways from Ravensthorpe to Cleck-heaton, in the West Riding of the county of York (Spen Valley Light Railway Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the borough of Dewsbury, the urban districts of Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heckmondwike, Gomersal, Birkenshaw, Hunsworth, and Thornhill and (under certain conditions) in the city of Bradford and the borough of Batley, in the West Riding of the county of York (Spen Valley Light Railway (Extensions) Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified
  406
  and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Isle of Thanet Light Railways Order, 1898 (Isle of Thanet Light Railways (Amendment) Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Warwick, in the urban district of Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton and the rural district of Atherstone (Nuneaton and District Light Railway Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Nottingham, in the borough of Mansfield, and the urban districts of Mansfield, Woodhouse, Sutton-in-Ashfield, and Hucknall-under-Huthwaite (Mansfield and District Light Railways Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made By the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the West Riding of the county of York from Rothwell to Hunslet, and the working of the East and West Yorkshire Union Railways as Light Railways (East and West Union Light Railways Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  Copy presented, of Preliminary Report of the Census of Scotland, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).—Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure for 1900, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act], to be printed. [No. 211.]

  COAL TABLES.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement showing the Production, Consumption, and Export of Coal, and the number of Persons employed in Coal Production, in the principal Countries of the World, in each

  407
  year from 1883 to 1899, as far as the particulars can be stated; together with a Statement showing the Production of, and Trade in, Petroleum in the United States and in the Russian Empire for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 134, of Session 1900."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of Net Public Income and Net Public Expenditure under certain specified Heads, as represented by Receipts into and Issues out of the Exchequer from 1880–81 to 1900–1901 inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 357, of Session 1900)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures—Mr. Harrington and Major Jameson.; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Dillon and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following fifteen Members in respect of the Larceny Bill:—Sir William Anson, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Black, Mr. Boland, Mr. T. D. Bolton, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Cohen, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Mr. Leigh-Bennett, Mr. Martin, Mr. Mather, Mr. Morris, Mr. Nicol, and Mr. Stock.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Mr. Laurence Hardy to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Queen Anne's Bounty Board.—That they have appointed a Committee con
  408
  sisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons, pursuant to Message 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."
  Public Accounts.—That they give leave to the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Public Accounts.

  PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT [JOINT COMMITTEE].
  Report, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, from the Joint Committee brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 212.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—SHOOTING OF BOER PRISONERS AT PRETORIA.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two burghers were shot in Pretoria on Tuesday, and can he say what was the offence, and whether any British subjects were shot by the Boers in cold blood since the war began.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Three Boers who were on parole attempted to leave Pretoria during the night of 9th June to join commandoes; two were armed and opened fire on the party sent to capture them, wounding one man. They were condemned to death by court-martial, and the two armed men were shot. All prisoners attempting to escape are liable to be shot. There are undoubted cases of shooting of British subjects by the Boers. I do not think it is desirable to deal with them, as there is no connection between these judicial sentences and excesses which have been, in certain instances, committed by the Boers.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite a

  409
  single instance where British prisoner have been shot in this way by the Boers when captured by them?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Of course not.
  MR. BRODRICK: But I do not know of any cases in which British prisoners, having escaped, have fired on a patrol sent to capture them and wounded them, though I do know cases in which British subjects, for no valid offence, have been shot in cold blood by the Boers. [Cries of "Name" from Nationalist Members.] I might mention the cases of Boyd and another who were shot at Wolmaranstad about four months ago, and also the case of Esau, who was shot in cold blood.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not the fact that a large number of British prisoners imprisoned on the racecourse at Pretoria, while the capital was in the hands of the Transvaal Government, escaped; were any of them captured and shot, and was any attempt made to shoot the hon. Member for Oldham when he ran away?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These incidents cannot be discussed.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then, is it not the fact that the circumstances surrounding the cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman have been greatly in dispute, and particularly that the case of Esau was strenuously denied?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This matter cannot be investigated now. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to name cases, and he did so, but these cannot be discussed.

  PROTECTION OF SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the course of operations for clearing the country in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, the natives are deprived of their cattle, sheep, grain, and agricultural implements; if so, whether any compensation is made to the owners for the loss, and
  410
  what measures are taken to prevent a famine among the native population in the denuded districts.
  MR. BRODRICK: Every effort is made to secure natives from any avoidable loss. Payments to natives for their cattle have been reported in various instances. Lord Kitchener is fully alive to the difficulty of the situation in regard to supplies.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Are the natives taken into refugee camps?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say what is done in each case; but they are safeguarded as far as possible from the rigours of the war.

  VLAKFONTEIN ENGAGEMENT.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many troops General Dixon had under his command in the recent engagement at Vlakfontein, and whether the Boer forces opposed to him exceeded 600; and, if so, what was his estimate of the strength of the Boers engaged in the action.
  MR. BRODRICK: The figures have been already published. General Dixon had about 1,450 men, and the Boers had about 1,200 men.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the First Lord of the Treasury of that fact?

  TRANSVAAL CONCESSIONS COMMISSION—MINING CONCESSIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commission shows that mining concessions have not yet been inquired into, will he state when the Commissioners propose to make inquiry in regard to these concessions.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Commissioners have concluded their inquiry, and I am not aware that there are any further concessions demanding inquiry.

  LONDON SCOTTISH VOLUNTEERS ACTIVE SERVICE COMPANY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain the conditions under which London Scottish Volunteers were enrolled for active service shortly after the outbreak of war in South Africa; and is he aware that the members of this force who have now returned to this country have recently been informed that the thirty days pay; which was paid to them as a gratuity, will now be deducted from war gratuities payable by the paymaster; and will he state why the deduction is to be made.
  MR. BRODRICK: The conditions of enlistment are clearly laid down in Army Order 29 of February, 1900. Under these they were entitled to a gratuity of £5 on discharge, in addition to the war gratuity. In some cases, by a mistake as to the regulations, a furlough of thirty days was granted to these service companies on discharge, involving a further payment. Considering the long and excellent service given by these men, and that their engagement was at Army rates, I have arranged that in all cases a furlough of thirty days with pay shall be given in addition to the gratuities earned.

  SPION KOP—SURVEY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the discussion on the question of the events in connection therewith, whether there is any objection to correct plans of Spion Kop and the neighbourhood of Spion Kop being issued and laid before Parliament; and whether maps were made by a thoroughly equipped party, including Royal Engineers, under Lieutenant Skip-with; if so, are these or copies of them in the War Office.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): Surveys are being made of the neighbourhood, and I think we must wait for them before issuing detailed plans of any particular district.

  TRANSPORT—THE "MONGOLIAN."
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary
  412
  of State for War whether he can state the registered accommodation of the "Mongolian" for troops, and how many men she brought home from South Africa on her last voyage, whether there were seven deaths on board, and what was the number of cases of enteric fever and other diseases which occurred during the passage to Southampton.
  LORD STANLEY: The registered, accommodation of the "Mongolian" is 1,000 for troops. On her last voyage she brought home 778 Imperial Yeomanry. There were thirty-one cases of enteric, forty-two cases of miscellaneous diseases and other trivial cases during the voyage; seven deaths occurred, all from enteric.
  MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the s.s. "Mongolian" is still in the transport service; and, if so, on what date she will sail.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The "Mongolian" was discharged from the transport service on the 11th instant.

  ARMY RATIONS—POISONOUS TINNED MEATS.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of men of the York and Lancaster Regiment in Fermoy Barracks were poisoned on Saturday last by eating tinned meat; can he state whether any deaths have occurred; from what source the meat was obtained, and whether a full inquiry will be made into the circumstances.
  LORD STANLEY: Some men of the York and Lancaster Regiment were poisoned by partaking of a tin of beef. This tin was purchased by the men from the canteen, and was not part of, the Government ration. The men are all practically well now. The commanding officer has full discretion in regard to canteen supplies, and no inquiry is necessary.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will an inquiry be made as to where the canteen authorities purchased this meat?
  LORD STANLEY: If the general officer commanding thinks it necessary to make further inquiry, it lies in his power to do so.
  MR. FIELD: Will a prosecution be ordered against those who have thus endeavoured to poison His Majesty's troops?
  [No answer was returned.]

  PENRHYN QUARRY DISPUTE—MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any application has been made for the military, in anticipation of disturbance at the Penrhyn quarries; whether, in the event of application being made, will he notify by circular or otherwise to magistrates and tradesmen in the locality that neither the War Office or the County Council of Carnarvonshire is bound by any agreement for catering the troops that may be entered into by the local magistrates; and whether the War Office proposes to make any further payment to the Aberdare tradesmen who catered for the troops in that town in 1898 upon the order of the late stipendiary magistrate for Merthyr, at rates agreed upon between him and them, and before the decision of the High Court was given that the cost of catering was an Imperial and not a local charge.
  LORD STANLEY: I understand that application for military aid has been made, but this matter entirely rests with the general officer commanding the district. I do not propose to issue any circular of the nature suggested. In regard to the third paragraph, all the payments that are considered due from Army funds have been made, and it is not proposed to make any further payments.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is the noble, Lord aware that the payment was not in accordance with the terms agreed upon?
  LORD STANLEY: I am not.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where did the application for military aid come from?
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot answer that question. I do not know.

  VOLUNTEERS AT DUBLIN BARRACKS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the individuals who are alleged to be drilled at Portobello Barracks, Dublin, with regular soldiers are volunteers; and, if so, to what volunteer regiments do they belong; whether, if they do not prove themselves efficient, they are subject to any penalty, and, seeing that they are receiving instruction from a non-commissioned officer on the strength of the Rifle Brigade, will he state what remuneration this officer receives for his services; whether these individuals have applied for and received licences to carry arms from the Chief Commissioner of Police; for what purpose are they being drilled and instructed in the handling of firearms; and whether part of the instruction comprises a week at camp at Rhyl; and, if so, can he state who pays the expense of such a journey.
  LORD STANLEY: The individuals named are volunteers from the Volunteer Battalions of the Royal Welsh. Fusiliers and the Royal Highlanders. Their drills are for the purpose of improving their military knowledge, but do not count towards efficiency. If they are returned non-efficient they do not receive the efficiency grant, and they are liable for certain penalties according to the rules of their corps. The non-commissioned officer who drills them receives no extra remuneration from Army funds. I have no information as to any application for licences. If the battalion to which they belong goes into camp they would be permitted to go into camp with it, but the cost of the journey would not fall upon Army funds.

  IRISH RIFLE CLUBS.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the general regulations for the formation of rifle clubs in Ireland with respect to the right of such clubs to be supplied with Government rifles and ammunition, and will any such club duly affiliated to the National Rifle

  415
  Association be supplied with same at cost price.
  LORD STANLEY: The conditions under which rifle clubs in Ireland are supplied with Government rifles and ammunition are precisely the same as those which obtain in England and Scotland. In cases where such clubs have been affiliated to the National Rifle Association, rifles and ammunition have been supplied at vocabulary rates.

  RECRUITING IN IRELAND.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many recruits for the Regular and Militia forces, respectively, have enlisted in Ireland during the first four months of the present year, and how many during the same four months of the years 1899 and 1900.
  LORD STANLEY: The figures are as follows:—

  Army.

  Militia.

  1899

  1,465

  3,063.

  1900

  1,880

  1,867.

  1901

  1,367

  1,344.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can name an early day for the introduction of the Naval Works Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In the present state of public business it is impossible for me to fix a date for the introduction of the Naval Works Bill, but I am specially anxious to meet the convenience of the House upon it, because I understand that on this Bill the hon. Gentleman desires to make some observations on the subject of Gibraltar. I think that would be a proper occasion, and I quite recognise that there are special reasons connected with the events of this year which make it important, if possible, to take an early opportunity for discussing this matter.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There will at any rate be a Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. ASQUITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will make his promised statement on the subject of Gibraltar?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said "very shortly," which I suppose may be interpreted, without any violent exegesis, to mean next week or the week after.

  NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what was the amount spent on new construction during the financial year ending 31st March, 1901.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The amount spent on new construction during the financial year ending 31st March, 1901, was £8,911,849.

  QUEENSLAND ASIATIC BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to continue to refuse the Royal Assent to the Queensland Asiatic Bill in case that or a similar measure should be presented for assent by the Parliament of the Australian Commonwealth.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is purely hypothetical, and the hon. Member is aware that I cannot answer such questions.

  CHINA—GERMAN TROOPS AT SHANGHAI.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the occupation of Shanghai by German troops is in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-German Agreement, and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will invite the German Government to withdraw at an early day all German troops from the British sphere of influence in China.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): The Anglo-German Agreement is directed to securing freedom of trade for all

  417
  nations in the rivers and littoral of China, and to maintaining the territorial integrity of China, and has no relation to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the operation of the Anglo-German Agreement is having the effect of elbowing England out of China?
  [No answer was returned.]

  FRUIT AND SUGAR DUTIES—PRESERVED FRUITS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Customs have recently issued an order imposing a duty of 7s. per cwt upon apricot pulp which contains no added sugar, that this article contains over 80 per cent. of water, and that fresh apricots when dried yield one-fifth of their weight, and consequently that the pulp will now pay relatively five times as much duty as dried apricots, and this notwithstanding that neither of these articles contain any added sugar whatever; under what authority has this order been issued, and whether all fruit pulp free from added sugar imported or produced in this country will be subject to similar conditions.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): This is a question of the Fruit Duty, not of the Sugar Duty. Dried and otherwise preserved apricots and apricot pulp are chargeable with duty at 7s. a cwt. under the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, because apricots are a kind of plum. Duty has long been levied on dried apricots, but apricot pulp has hitherto escaped duty under the idea that it contained sugar, plums preserved in sugar being exempt from duty under the above-mentioned Act. This exemption clearly could not continue after the reimposition of the sugar duty, and it was therefore repealed by the resolution agreed to by the House and embodied in the Finance Bill. From recent analyses in the Customs laboratory, apricot pulp appears to contain no added sugar and very little (at most 10 or 11 per cent.), if any, added water
  418
  No doubt a pound of pulp contains much less fruit than a pound of dried apricots, but the fact that a particular method of preservation retains the natural juices in the fruit does not afford any legal ground of exemption from duty. I am, however, considering whether a lower rate of duty might not properly be charged on preserved than on dried apricots.
  MR. KEARLEY: Are we to regard this as a strictly new duty which has never been before the House at all?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, I have said it is embodied in the Finance Bill.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can explain the differentiation of the sugar duty on canned peaches and other fruits preserved in syrup, which are assessed on the basis of 1s. per cwt. of the nett weight of the contents of the tins, while canned apricots, also preserved in syrup containing a like amount of sugar, are now being charged a duty of 7s. per cwt.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Canned apricots, as I have already explained, are subject to the Fruit Duty. Canned peaches and the other fruit assessed at 1s. the cwt. by General Order 45 of 1901 are not subject to it; therefore the Sugar Duty only is charged on the sugar in each can.
  MR. KEARLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between an apricot and a peach, that one is subject to one treatment and the other to another treatment?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: According to the very best authorities I have consulted, it was decided many years ago that an apricot was a plum and a peach was not.

  CUSTOMS REBATES IN IRELAND AND THE ISLE OF MAN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that a rebate on the duty on tea, sugar, whiskey, and tobacco is allowed in the Isle of Man, and in

  419
  view of the Financial Relations Commission's Report, a similar rebate could be allowed in Ireland to reduce the over-taxation of that country.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Isle of Man has its own customs tariff, originating with the Tynwald. The duties on tea and tobacco are the same in the Isle of Man as in Great Britain and Ireland, and no rebate on them is allowed. The duty on whiskey is lower in the Isle of Man than in Great Britain and Ireland, and a rebate is consequently allowed on whiskey which has paid duty in Great Britain and is subsequently shipped to Man. As regards sugar, no duty has yet been imposed in the Isle of Man, and sugar removed to that island would receive a rebate under similar circumstances. So long as the customs tariff in Ireland is the same as in Great Britain no question of rebate can arise.
  MR. FLYNN: How long will that be?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope as long as I live.

  THE "PRIMROSE HILL" INQUIRY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state why the relatives of certain apprentices who lost their lives in the "Primrose Hill" disaster were not allowed to be represented at the inquiry held upon the subject, and whether the next-of-kin of men who lose their lives in cases of this kind are entitled to be represented at such inquiries.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am informed that the relatives were allowed to be represented at the inquiry to the extent of their solicitor being permitted to cross-examine witnesses. But the judge declined to allow them to be made formal parties to the proceedings, and therefore refused to permit their solicitor to address the court at the conclusion of the evidence. By the rules made under the Merchant Shipping Act governing these inquiries, any person who can show that he has an
  420
  interest in the investigation has a right to appear and be made a party to the proceedings, but the question whether any person succeeds in showing that interest is for the discretion of the judge.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make some new arrangement whereby in similar cases the relatives of all persons who are drowned in ships that are wrecked may have the fullest opportunity in every way of appearing before the court of inquiry? In this case the relatives of twelve unfortunate boys were refused it.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have already stated what the requirements of the law are, and I have no power to vary the law. The judge, acting on his own discretion, refused to hear the representatives, and I am not prepared to say whether, in my opinion, it was aright or wrong discretion.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will call attention to this case at an early date.

  WELSH INSPECTORS OF MINES.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Hall, the inspector for North Wales under the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, and Dr. Foster, the late inspector for North Wales under the Metalliferous Mines Acts, were appointed prior to the passing of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, and the Quarries Act, 1894, respectively; and, seeing that Dr. Foster having now resigned, the appointment of Mr. Hall as his successor (he, prior to this appointment, not having been inspector for North Wales under the Metalliferous Mines Acts, but only under the Coal Mines Regulation Acts) now comes under the provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, Section 15, as amended by the Quarries Act, 1894, Section 2, Sub-section 2, and in view of the fact that Mr. Hall is not able to speak the Welsh language, and that there are thousands of monoglot miners in North Wales, whether he will, in accordance with the statutory requirements, appoint an inspector in successsion to Dr. Foster acquainted with the Welsh language.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second paragraph, it is true that Mr. Hall has not hitherto been inspector for North Wales under the Metalliferous Mines Acts, but he has been the inspector under the Coal Mines Acts, and in accordance with the express provisions of Section 15 of the Metalliferous Mines Act of 1872, I am directing him to act as Metalliferous Mines Inspector in North Wales, and in pursuance of Section 2, Subsection (2), of the Quarries Act of 1894, he will also he inspector of quarries in that district. I am not, therefore, making a new appointment, to which contingency alone, in my opinion, the section of the Quarries Act to which the hon. Member refers applies. Even if it were otherwise, that section requires merely that "among candidates equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred." In this case there was no candidate whose qualifications, could compare with those of Mr. Hall, upon whose ability and good service I need hardly enlarge. With reference to the consideration due to the Welsh-speaking miners, I would repeat that, in accordance with a general scheme of rearrangement in the mines inspection districts, of which this particular question is only part, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jones, the two Welsh-speaking assistant inspectors in North Wales, who have hitherto acted not only for that district but also for four English counties and the Isle of Man, will now devote themselves entirely to inspection in Wales. The new arrangement will, therefore, secure a considerable increase of inspection there by Welsh-speaking inspectors.
  MR. MOSSwas understood to inquire if candidates were advertised, seeing that this was a new appointment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: The question is whether the appointment of an inspector to duties different from those he had hitherto performed, and in a different district, did not constitute a new appointment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

  EXPORTS OF WELSH COAL.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what variation there has been in the exports of coal from Cardiff and Newport respectively in May, 1901, as compared with the quantity exported in the corresponding month of last year, and if he will give the percentage increase or decrease.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The quantity of coal exported from Cardiff in May, 1900, was 1,168,722 tons, and in May, 1901, 1,352,279 tons, an increase of 15·71 per cent. The exports of coal from Newport in the same months were 209,077 tons and 210,289 tons, an increase of 58 per cent.

  MILK STANDARDS.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to adopt the standard for milk recommended by the Departmental Committee (Majority Report); and, if so, when such standard will come into force.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper on the same subject:—
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has had under consideration the Reports, both of the majority and minority, of the Departmental Committee as regards the percentage of solid matter and fat in milk; and if he has come to any decision on the recommendations contained in those Reports.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has fixed the standard for milk under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act; if so, can he state what are the standards fixed.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): After carefully considering the

  423
  evidence submitted to the Departmental Committee and their Reports, I propose to fix a standard under which, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, a presumption will be raised that milk is not genuine unless it contains 3 per cent. of milk fat and 8.5 per cent. of non-fatty milk solids. Regulations to this effect are being prepared, and I propose that they shall come into force on 1st August.

  PUBLIC DRINKING PLACES FOR ANIMALS.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing how easily under present conditions, horses are infected with dangerous diseases, he will consider the advisability of issuing a regulation to the effect that every public drinking place for animals must be provided with a standpipe and tap, which will enable carmen to fill their own buckets and water their horses without fear of infection.
  *MR. HANBURY: I have no power to issue such a regulation as the hon. Member suggests.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS—COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the advisability of granting a higher compensation to the owners of diseased animals slaughtered by order of the Board's inspectors; and whether he is aware that £2 as compensation in cases of glanders is insufficient to prevent the owner endeavouring to temporarily cure his horse, and send it for sale to a public place in which it is almost certain to affect surrounding animals.
  *MR. HANBURY: The diseased animals are slaughtered by the local authority at their own discretion, and without any special order of the Board or their inspectors. The sum of £2 mentioned in the question is the minimum amount of compensation sanctioned by the Board, and one-fourth of the value of the animal immediately before it became diseased is the maximum. Between these two points the decision rests with
  424
  the local authority, out of whose funds the compensation is paid. A very large proportion of cases of glanders occur in the area of the London County Council, who, I understand, now have the whole subject under their consideration.

  POST OFFICE—EXTRANEOUS ASSISTANCE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state why certain officials from Somerset House and other public offices have for the past six to eight months been employed at from 6d. to 8d. per hour in assisting in the primary sorting at different postal centres in London for as long as three or four hours in the evening, although in receipt of salaries some as high as £160 per annum; and whether he will consider the advisability of having this work performed by members of the permanent postal staff instead of having to resort to dual employment.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The reason is that the assistance is required at a period of the day when all the permanent postal staff whose attendances can possibly be arranged to cover the period in question are already on duty.

  EX-SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH COMPANY'S CLERKS PENSION QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether those clerks in the employ of the late Submarine Telegraph Company, who were in 1890 taken over by the Post Office, are allowed to count the whole of their service, including that not rendered to the Crown, towards superannuation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is provided by Clause 3 of the Post Office and Telegraph Act of 1897 that officers, of the late Submarine Telegraph Company, who, on the 1st of April, 1889, entered the permanent Civil Service of the State in an established capacity shall, for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, be entitled to count their past years

  425
  of continuous service with the company since the 28th of January, 1870, as years passed in the Civil Service of the State.

  ELECTRIC TRAM ACCIDENTS IN GLASGOW.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state how many tramcar accidents occurred in Glasgow and Edinburgh respectively during the first four months of the present year, and also the number of electric car accidents in each city during the same period; and, in view of the increase in the number of accidents of this description, will he state the maximum speed at which electric cars are allowed to travel in these cities, and will he say how many cases of excessive speed have been reported by the police.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The Secretary for Scotland has no information on the matters referred to, which do not fall within his departmental jurisdiction.
  MR. WEIR: Then to whom must I apply for the information?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I should say to the Glasgow City Council.

  APPLECROSS (ROSS-SHIRE) FISHERY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have yet considered the expediency of providing a grant towards the erection of a small pier or boatslip at Annat, in the parish of Applecross, Ross-shire.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Congested Districts Board received an application from the county council on the 6th instant, and are making inquiry into the case.

  OFFICERS OF HEALTH IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if in the case of sparsely populated districts, especially in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the Government will provide that medical
  426
  men may be appointed officers of health without holding diplomas in sanitary science, public health, and State medicine.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The matter is entirely regulated by statute, and the Government have no power in the matter.

  NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES—ARCHITECTS.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what arrangements, are being made to ensure the satisfactory execution of the designs of Mr. Young and Mr. Brydon for the new Government Offices.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): To my great regret both Mr. Young and Mr. Brydon, the architects originally selected to carry out the building of the new War Office and the Government Offices in Parliament Streets have recently died. My hon. friend will remember that Sir John Taylor was specially appointed to act with them as consulting architect. In the case of the War Office, Mr. Clyde Young, the son and partner of the original architect, is now carrying out the work in conjunction with Sir John Taylor. No definite decision has been come to with regard, to the Government Offices in Parliament. Street, the question being now under the consideration of the Treasury and of my Department. The completed plans and drawings are in the hands of the Office of Works, and can easily be carried, out, either by that Department or by an architect specially selected for the purpose.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—RETIREMENTS ON PENSIONS.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of head constables, sergeants, acting sergeants, and constables of good character compulsorily retired from the Royal Irish Constabulary on pension during the past twelvemonths; and the number ordered to apply to be retired, and the counties in which they were stationed in each case.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I can

  427
  not conveniently give this information within the limits of a reply to a question, and I have communicated a Return on the subject to the hon. Member.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT AHINAH.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain upon what grounds the application of John Desmond for a labourer's cottage in the Ahinah division of the Macroom Rural District Council was rejected by the Local Government Board after it had been passed at the recent Local Government Board inquiry held in Macroom; and whether he is aware that the site for the said cottage was selected so as to fulfil all the requirements of the Labourers Acts, being adjoining the public road and in close proximity to a sufficient supply of water.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board has not rejected this application. The inspector's report on the inquiry has not yet been received by the Board.

  FORESTRY IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the necessity of taking measures to form a forestry department in Ireland, with the object of utilising suitable waste lands for tree planting, and of preventing the country from being entirely denuded of timber.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction is fully alive to the importance of the matter, which it hopes to take up in due time in conjunction with the county councils. It does not appear to be necessary at present to form a special forestry department in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: Are there any funds at the disposal of the Department to take up a question of this magnitude, or will the Government have to vote more money?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are funds at the disposal of the Government.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY GRIEVANCES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inquiry into the claims and alleged grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary has yet been brought to a conclusion; if not, can he state when it will be concluded, and will the evidence be made public and available to Members of this House before any decision is arrived at.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The taking of evidence has been completed by the Committee, who will submit their Report to the Lord Lieutenant in due course. The Report and evidence, as I have already stated, will be presented to Parliament.
  MR. FLYNN: Of course, if the Irish Government, as a result of the Report, decide to make application to the Treasury for additional money, an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the matter?
  MR. WYNDHAMThat will depend on circumstances.

  PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Council of Agriculture and Technical Instruction at its meeting in Dublin on the 31st ultimo passed a resolution calling on the Government to amend the Local Government Act so as to enable county councils in Ireland to execute arterial drainage and other works of a reproductive character, such as reafforesting, and to simplify the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land and other property necessary for the carrying out of these and other public works; and will he state what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to give effect to this resolution.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have already replied to questions on the various points referred to in this resolution in answer to questions put to-day and yesterday by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division.

  ROAD MAKING IN IRELAND.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  429
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view of preventing public roads in several parts of Ireland from falling into a bad condition in the coming winter owing to the uncertainty of contract labour and the direct labour system in prospective, the Government can see their way to have the new order of things, outlined in the improvement of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, come into operation by the 1st day of October next, a proceeding that would give employment to the labourers when it cannot otherwise be had.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. There is a provision in the Order fixing the date on which it is to come into operation as the 1st of April next. This date was fixed having regard to the administrative arrangements of county and district councils, and I do not think it could be altered with advantage.

  IRISH CENSUS.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when the completed census returns for Ireland will be ready, and whether any statistics compiled by the census authorities in addition to the figures already published will be issued before the completed returns are made out.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Complete statistics for each county will be published from time to time, and the first of these county books will, it is expected, be issued in September next. The county books, when completed, will be followed by the general report, but no date can be fixed, even approximately, for the publication of the latter.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will propose to make permanent such temporary law, as the Ballot Act, 1872, and other Acts which are renewed annually, but have become part of the settled legal enactments of the realm.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite agree that the Expiring Laws Continuance
  430
  Bill is rather an anomalous measure, and contains Acts which are practically now part of the permanent statutory system of the realm; but I am very unwilling to touch that Bill without giving a great deal of time to its thorough revision, because, of course, if the Bill be amended at all, it naturally is open to the discussion of the whole House, and it would be a very long affair. For that reason the Government have been very careful that the renewal of the Rating Act should not be carried out by means of that kind, as of course it might have been, but that it should be a separate measure.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: May I ask what the business will be next week, and especially what Supply will be taken on Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not usual until the beginning of the week to state what Supply will be proceeded with on the Friday, but I shall be happy to make a statement not later than next week. I have received information this morning which makes me think that it may be necessary, or at any rate desirable, to pass the Third Reading of the Civil List Bill at an early date. I will probably put it down as the first Order on Tuesday.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking any other Bills next week than the Factory Bill, the Civil List Bill, and the Finance Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.

  DISTURBANCES IN BELFAST.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the character of a handbill which was circulated in Belfast prior to Sunday, the 9th instant, and which openly incited to attacks on a Roman Catholic procession; whether the police had possession of this circular before the riots in Belfast on Sunday last; was any effort made by the police prior to or since the riots to discover the authors and circulators; and, if so, whether any prosecution has been instituted or is intended by the authorities

  431
  against the authors or circulators of this handbill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; this discreditable handbill was brought to my notice, together with written reports for which I had called, to supplement telegraphic reports on these riots. The police seized and destroyed the handbill wherever they found it. The question of instituting proceedings against the person or persons responsible for its publication and the question of what further steps may be necessary to prevent a renewal of disorder are now under consideration. No effort will be spared to protect individuals and property and to bring to justice any persons who can be made amenable for having exposed either to risk.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement which appeared in last evening's Evening Standard of the proceedings in Belfast on Wednesday is correct—
  "A shocking onslaught by Queen's Island men—"
  *MR. SPEAKER: It will not be in order to read a paragraph from a newspaper and ask if it is correct. If the hon. Member can vouch for the fact he can then put the question.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I cannot vouch for the facts. I am asking for information. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that on Wednesday last 100 Catholic navvies engaged in making the Musgrave Dock were attacked by Queen's Island men, and were obliged to take refuge in boats in the harbour; that a large number of them were seriously injured by showers of iron nuts thrown by these men; that one of these men had to take refuge in the water and was nearly killed; whether a similar occurrence took place when the Alexandra Dock was being made; whether on that occasion one young man was not actually drowned; whether the recent disturbance which commenced on Sunday and apparently extended up to Wednesday has been effectually put down; and what steps will be taken to make the ringleaders and inciters of these proceedings amenable to the law.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The very regrettable and discreditable incident to which the hon. Member refers took place on Tuesday.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I was asking as to the proceedings on Wednesday.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am giving the hon. Gentleman all the information I have. A large number of Queen's Island men made an attack on Roman Catholics on Wednesday. Some 250 took refuge in boats, and one man was struck by a missile, but he was a Protestant. [Laughter.]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is no laughing matter.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In consequence of the character of some portions of the answers I have received, and in consequence of the serious state of these occurrences, owing to which, I understand on good authority, many hundreds of Catholic workmen are at this moment out of employment, I will deem it my duty to ask the indulgence of the House to raise the question in a motion for the adjournment of the House after questions.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord; Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how many persons were injured and how much damage done to property by the riots which took place in Belfast on Sunday the 9th instant and since, and how many arrests and prosecutions have resulted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that fourteen persons are known to have received injuries, none, happily, save in one case, of a dangerous character. The amount of the damage done to property is estimated at £100. Twenty-eight persons have already been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for participation in the rioting. One man who was badly injured, named Macalister, is a Protestant and was mistaken for a Roman Catholic. The police do not control the harbour works, nor could, they do so without the aid of the military. The place where this regrettable incident

  433
  occurred is private ground. Reports from Belfast state that all is quiet now, and all steps are being taken to preserve the peace.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked if the right hon. Gentleman had taken any steps to stop the publication of the handbill, as he did in the case of the Irish People.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member can hardly have caught the purport of my answer. I have already stated that the police seized the handbill wherever they found it, and that proceedings were pending against the persons said to be responsible. Under these circumstances he deprecated any discussion on the matter while legal proceedings were pending.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked who were the persons against whom proceedings were pending.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he deprecated that too. When summonses were about to be issued the best way to defeat the action of the Executive would be to give names.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not see that.

DISTURBANCES AT BELFAST.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT].
MR. JOHN REDMONDthen rose in his place and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the riots which have been taking place in Belfast during this week, and the failure of the Executive to take proper measures for the protection of the lives and properties of the Catholic working men of Belfast;" 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. JOHN REDMOND: The question which I feel it my duty to bring before the House is one of very great
434
importance. I can assure the House that the bringing up of questions of this kind in which Catholics and Protestants are in conflict is to me an absolutely hateful task. During all the years I have been in public life in Ireland I have carefully guarded myself against ever saying one word of an offensive character with reference to my fellow-countrymen in the North of Ireland of a different creed from my own, and I have always looked forward to the day when these wretched religious differences would disappear from Ireland altogether. As an Irishman I am ashamed of the fact that, in any part of our country, circumstances such as I have to allude to to-day could take place. If these unfortunate incidents had taken place, not in Protestant Belfast, but in Catholic Cork or Dublin, and the Protestant minority had been treated as the Catholic minority has been treated in Belfast, I would have been the first to raise my voice against them, and just as strongly as I do on this occasion. People in this country follow events in Ireland so slightly that probably an overwhelming majority of the Members of this House are not even aware that since last Sunday the city of Belfast has been almost in a state of siege, that day and night since then there has been a state of rioting, necessitating the strongest measures on the part of the police, and even upon one occasion the calling out of the military, in order to restore order. Let me briefly state what occurred. On Sunday last a Catholic religious ceremony was announced to take place in the enclosed private grounds of St. Malachy's College in Belfast, and the Catholic people from different quarters of Belfast, not accompanied by banners, religious emblems, or bands, marched in processional order to the grounds. There was nothing to mark their particular religious creed. No attempt was made to have any religious ceremony or service in the public streets. On the way to the college the processionists were insulted and attacked all along the route, but nothing in the nature of very serious violence occurred. It was after the ceremony was over, and the people returned to their homes, that the really serious violence occurred. From the very start of the procession no

435
adequate police arrangements were made. If there had been, the attacks and insults might have been prevented in the first instance, and certainly after the ceremony it would have been possible to prevent the disgraceful and barbarous scenes of violence which took place. That night serious rioting occurred; the people were pursued to their homes; their property was in many cases destroyed; the windows of houses supposed to be inhabited by Catholics were smashed; the processionists were scattered, and they fled for their lives. One would have thought the disturbance would have ended with that, and probably if a riot of this kind had occurred in any other city in the world, the whole thing would have been over that Sunday night. But no. What occurred on Sunday was only the commencement of the real mischief. On Monday it had been arranged that some yeomen, back from the war, were to be received in Belfast, and—for what reason I know not—the return of these yeomen, coupled with the occurrences of Sunday, was taken as a reason by the Orangemen of Belfast to make a deliberate and carefully planned and most murderous attack upon the Catholic population of the city. Large bodies of workmen employed on Queen's Island at a great shipbuilding yard marched out from their workshops, invaded the Catholic quarters of Belfast, attacked Catholic houses, smashed windows, beat and ill-treated Catholics wherever they could find them in the streets, and finally the rioting became so serious that the police were unable to cope with it, and the Lancers had to be called out to clear the streets. All this time, as far as I have been able to discover, there was not a single act or word of provocation on the part of the Catholics—unless it be held that the procession of the day before was a provocation. So far from there being any retaliatory violence on the part of Catholics—although, God knows, I hate the whole idea of these so-called religious fights and disputes—while reading the accounts of these riots I could not help feeling my blood boil almost at the fact that the Catholics did not resist this violence. They fled and escaped where ever they could, and there was never anything in the nature of a fight
436
between Protestants and Catholics. It was violence upon one side, and a scattering and running away on the part of the Catholics attacked. That was Monday. On Tuesday the reign of terror was narrowed down. Instead of sallying forth into the streets and attacking the houses and people, the whole force of the attack was concentrated upon the unfortunates in the shipyards at Queen's Island. We know something of these shipyards. We have always been proud in the knowledge that the greatest shipbuilding yard in the world is in Belfast. Some little while ago I visited this yard, and was astonished at its magnitude. L found that 10,000 hands were employed, that they were building the greatest ships in the world for every country in the world, and that amongst those 10,000 hands there were about 1,500 or 1,600 Catholics. I asked how the Catholics and Protestants got on together Mr. Pirrie, who personally I believe is a liberal-minded man, told me quite candidly that, while they got on all right during the greater part of the year, from, time to time it became impossible to protect the Catholic minority, and that Messrs. Harland and Wolff had actually at times to close their works in consequence for a fortnight at a time.
If one read of all this happening in some foreign country, in a semi-civilised; community, one would not be astonished. But to think that here, in a great and civilised city, by your own very shores, these things can happen, seems absolutely incredible. I am convinced that the Commission of 1886 or 1887, presided over by Mr. Justice Day, were correct when they stated in their Report that the riots and the maltreatment of the Catholic minority could not take place were it not that, unfortunately, the rioters have at their backs the sympathy of the well-to-do classes of the community. I allude to that statement of the Commission to show the horror, the barbarous, semi-savage state of things which exists in a community where this kind of conduct is tolerated by those who call themselves the upholders of law and order, and who are very fond of urging upon the Government the necessity of protecting life and property and liberty in other parts of Ireland. Let me read shortly a description of what took place

437
on Tuesday. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he does me the honour to reply to what I am saying, will carefully distinguish between the different dates, because I attach great importance to them. The original cause of the riot was this procession and religious ceremony on Sunday. The riot was not so bad on Sunday; it got worse on Monday, and the military had to be called out. On Tuesday the disturbance got into the shipyards, and, as I shall show, it culminated on Wednesday, there thus being nearly a week of the savage work, increasing in intensity from day to day. Here is what occurred on Tuesday. I am reading from the Irish News, of Belfast. That, no doubt, is a Catholic organ—I want to be perfectly frank—but that is no reason why this statement should be unduly exaggerated, and I think it will be found that it is substantially true—
"Scenes of violence, in which the sufferers were as usual Catholics, took place in the Belfast shipyards yesterday. The bigotry was strongly in evidence when the shipyards opened for the resuming time of business at the usual hour yesterday morning, but matters did not come to a head until the approach of the breakfast hour, when the Catholic workers in many instances were set upon and brutally beaten. As nine o'clock drew near the Catholic workers in the yard of Messrs. Workman and Clark were informed by some persons in authority there that they had better be on the alert, as a crowd was waiting for them at the gate by which they were to leave. When some of the workers had departed several hundreds, who had been outside, rushed through the gate, and proceeded in the direction of the boiler shop, where they attacked an old man named Ruddy, who is a Catholic, and resides at Sheriff Street. He was kicked in a savage manner about the head and body, and no doubt his life would have been in danger had he not managed to get on his feet and dash to the cook-house, where some fellow-workers were just then having the morning meal, and who intervened on his behalf. He was bleeding profusely, and at the first opportunity the ambulance was sent for, and in it he was driven to the Royal Hospital, where he was detained.
"Shortly after seven o'clock a.m. a young rivetter was attacked in a manner as savage as it was uncalled for. He was engaged in his work in the north yard, when he was surrounded by a crowd numbering about thirty, who threatened to 'tear the Fenian heart out of him,' and, in addition, they used further language of a most menacing character. A rivetter who endeavoured to protect the man from the violence of the mob was menaced, and to the credit of the foreman it must be said he did all he could in the interests of peace,
438
but his efforts were unsuccessful. The youth referred to—who, needless to add, was a Catholic—did not leave the yard at the time, as the foreman feared he would be again attacked by the mob.
"Towards dinner hour the mob had not vacated its position outside the gate, and, acting, on the advice of the foreman and others of the establishment, the Catholic workers gradually left the place as best they could, and were compelled through fear to remain out all day."
But the more serious occurrences took place at Messrs. Harland and Wolff's. Here is what occurred there—
"The number of workmen employed usually on the Queen's Island amounts almost to 10,000, and of this number about 1,500 are Catholics. Whenever any disturbances take place in the city this small percentage are practically hunted, from the works. This is what took place yesterday morning. Fresh from the exploits on the Shankhill Road, hundreds of the majority assembled yesterday morning and began what was nothing short of a reign of terror for the Catholics. They succeeded so far in their efforts that just now there are very few of the hated religion left. Let us give some instances of their conduct. There is an apprentice on the island who is the son of a man who occupies a responsible position in the works. The unfortunate youth, who is in his teens, was going along Queen's Road on Monday morning, when he saw a mob of Queen's Island employes coming towards him. Very naturally, he anticipated that he would come in for rough usage, and, seeing a harbour policeman adjacent, he sought his protection. The constable endeavoured to save the boy, but without avail; and the cowardly crew set upon the poor apprentice, and beat him in a most savage manner. Indeed, as an eye-witness remarked, he thought no set of human beings could be so cruel. They left the apprentice with his face covered with blood. The wonder is that they did not finish him outright. After a period of semi-consciousness the poor fellow was conveyed to the dining-room close at hand, where the attendants removed the blood by washing. From this temporary resting-place he managed to get to his home.
"The details of the above give an illustration of what was occurring generally in the Queen's Island. The R.I.C. were not present, and perhaps they have no jurisdiction in the district, but there is a force of harbour police, and they were also painfully absent."
I will have a word to say presently about the Royal Irish Constabulary being apparently exempt from duty on Queen's Island, because it is private property. The report then goes on to explain that these men went from shop to shop, singling out those who were known to be Catholics, beating them, and finally driving them out of the works. This reign of terror was thus going on in the streets and

439
workshops of Belfast for three days, but on Wednesday things got even worse. The Evening Standard of last night published this paragraph describing what they call—
"a shocking onslaught by the Queen's Island shipyard men yesterday—(that would be Wednesday)—afternoon on the Roman Catholic navvies employed on the new Musgrave Channel. About 100 of the latter, chased for their lives, had to take refuge in a tug-boat, which safely landed them on the other side of the harbour. Many of them were seriously injured by showers of iron bolts, nuts, and rivets. One young fellow was inhumanly beaten and thrown into the river. It was with great difficulty that he was rescued in a half-drowned condition. The new canal boats are to day idle, the navvies, numbering about 200, resolutely refusing to return. The harbour police were utterly powerless to cope with the disturbances. In 1886 a similar attack was made on the navvies at Alexandra Dock works, many being driven into the harbour, and one young fellow named Curran was drowned."
Another description, taken from the Freeman's Journal of yesterday, says:—
"To-day the Queen's Island workers again signalised their joy at the return of the Yeomanry. A formidable attack was made by a large and organised body of them upon hard-working, inoffensive Catholic labourers employed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners at the new Musgrave Channel works. The attacking party numbered from 300 to 400 mechanics. About one o'clock they swept down upon 100 Catholic labourers. The Catholics were taken completely by surprise, when the Orange and Protestant mob started hailing upon them bolts, bars, nuts, and stones. They took to a boat alongside, and escaped. The boat was towed rapidly off by a tug to the Co. Antrim side of the harbour. So complete was the surprise of the Catholics that numbers of the poor fellows hurried off leaving their coats behind on the slob-lands at which they were working. The derelict coats were burned by the magnanimous island rowdies, and then the windows in the huts were shattered to round off the expedition. Bitter complaint is made at the absence of the Royal Irish Constabulary from the neighbourhood of the shipbuilding yards, where serious occurrences took place during previous periods of excitement."
I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily by reading extracts, but, after all, I am basing my case upon the information supplied to me from the ordinary sources of public information. Of course, personally I have no knowledge of these transactions, and I think it right to give the authority on which I make these statements. Here is another description of the transactions of Wednesday—
"The nature of yesterday's work was so serious that over a hundred Catholics (em
440
ployed by a public board) have been turned out of work in a body, and forced to subsist as best they can, as no remuneration will be given them during their enforced idleness….. At the dinner hour a Catholic labourer, in the employment of the Harbour Board at the Channel, was proceeding down Queen's Road, when a crowd of over 300, who had provided themselves liberally with bolts, angle-irons, stones, and bars, made a rush at him, the attack being apparently part of a thought-out plan. The unfortunate man ran for his life, remembering only too well that it was at this exact spot, in 1886, the poor boy Curran was drowned by the inhuman monsters then in force on the island. After an exciting chase, during which he was subjected to a fusilade of missiles, he managed to reach the Musgrave Works and sought to protect himself within the enclosure. The mob were determined, however, to achieve their object, and rushed into the works, taking by surprise the other workers who were scattered about, and therefore not in a position to return the attack. Taken by surprise, and alarmed by the large numbers of their assailants, they were unable to protect themselves, and only thought of how to escape the shower of bolts and nuts, etc., which was now raining down upon them. A tug was near, and towards this a rush was made, and just in time, for the mob had now advanced, seemingly with the intention of driving the Catholics into the water. Many were struck, some very severely, and one particular instance might be mentioned of one man who, whilst frantically endeavouring to drag an old man into the boat, came in for a number of blows from bolts and nuts, which caused bad injuries. Another young lad was seriously injured, and subsequently had to be removed to the Royal Hospital, where he was treated and detained, so badly was he injured…. There were no police about—there never are on the island—"
and then the paper repeats the statement I have already read with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary—
"The Royal Irish Constabulary have no jurisdiction, we believe, upon the island, the latter being harbour property."
These are the occurrences which have been taking place during the last few days in Belfast. As to their serious character nobody can have any doubt. If ever there was a case when it was essential to move the adjournment of the House to call public attention to the action of the Executive this is such a case. This is no party question. It is not a question of politics at all, and certainly it is not a question of religion. This is nothing new. If this was the first time such a circumstance had happened in Belfast there would be some excuse for the Executive Government. But what argument can there be in defence

441
of any Government which has been for twenty or thirty years trying to cope with this mischief, and which to-day has to admit it is unable to do it? I may use against the Government one of their own favourite maxims—that a Government which is not able to protect the lives and the property of the minority in Belfast is not able to justify its existence. I may be asked what exactly I complain of on the part of the Executive, and what do I suggest. The Chief Secretary just now said something about the probability of some prosecutions.
MR. WYNDHAM: The certainty.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I allege—and I am anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will admit it—that these riots in Belfast were carefully and deliberately planned, that they were openly discussed, and that the Orange crowd were at public meetings in public speeches told to do exactly what they did. There is a man in Belfast named Trew. I am glad to think for the sake of Christian churches that he is not a minister of any religion; he is one of those itinerant preachers who sometimes arrogate to themselves the functions of properly appointed ministers of religion. He holds street services in different parts of the country, especially in Belfast. According to my information, this man has been in the habit of holding public meetings on the steps of the Custom House in Belfast, and at one of these meetings, on the Sunday before the riots, this Mr. Trew made a speech in which he told the people all about the Catholic ceremony which was coming on, and urged them in unmistakable language not to permit it or to allow the Catholics to walk through the streets. I ask is Mr. Trew to be prosecuted? I cannot understand the Chief Secretary saying it would defeat the ends of justice if he told us who were to be prosecuted. That may be true if these prosecutions are going to be confined to some two or three rowdies, picked up at street corners; but if the right hon. Gentleman is going to the fountain head of the mischief, and to prosecute the men who really are the ringleaders and instigators of this mischief, he need not be afraid of giving
442
the names, because they can scarcely run away from the country, and even if they did, possibly the right hon. Gentleman's object would be achieved.
So much for the open incitement by speech. Let me now read a poster which was put on the walls of Belfast, and also circulated as a handbill—issued, I am informed, on the authority of this Mr. Trew, but I do not know as to that. The poster says—
"Protestants! be on the alert. The Pope's brigade is preparing for an illegal procession through the streets of this Protestant city, carrying crucifixes, wafer gods, and other pagan emblems, on Sunday, June 9th. Will you permit God and Christianity to be insulted publicly by these pagans? Remember the glorious deeds of your forefathers at Derry, Aughrim, Enniskillen, and the Boyne, for our deliverance from papal tyranny. Rouse yourselves, Protestants, and see to it that Popery does not again gain the upper hand. God save the King."
Well indeed might the Sovereign's friends say "God save the King" from a man who could put his name at the bottom of such a document. I put it to English Members—Can they wonder that "God save the King" is not such a popular cry in Ireland as they would wish, when they find these words dragged through the dirt and mire by a wretched section of anti-Christian men who are conducting a campaign which is a disgrace to any civilised human being? I am glad the police have seized these placards where-ever they could, but it is manifest that they did not do it in time. What steps are being taken to make the man responsible for that placard amenable to the law? Let me take an illustration of what I mean. We are continually hearing of prosecutions for intimidation in the south and west of Ireland. Some of the most respectable men in the county of Waterford were recently prosecuted for intimidation because they passed in a meeting a resolution which was held to be likely to hurt unfairly the sensitive feelings of a land-grabber. The mere publication of that resolution was held to be a criminal offence. I know numbers of cases of prosecutions for placards infinitely less criminal and objectionable than this. If in the south and west of Ireland it is possible for the Government to trace

443
and make amenable to the law for intimidation and public incitement to violence the authors of documents not half as bad as this one, how is it that they are unable to fulfil this duty which they owe to the State in the city of Belfast? We shall await with curiosity to see who will be prosecuted, but we know by bitter experience what happens. Three or four, or perhaps a dozen or two dozen rowdies will be arrested—ignorant men, who have been incited by such documents as I have referred to, and the ribald and wild talk of men like Mr. Trew, and possibly sentenced to terms of imprisonment. That kind of prosecution is no good. You must go to the fountain head and make the men who are really responsible amenable to the law and punish them. It is said that the police were not present at Queen's Island, and the newspapers state that the Royal Irish Constabulary have no jurisdiction in Queen's Island, and that the keeping of the peace is entirely in the hands of the harbour police. The Chief Secretary also seemed rather to take that view. I do not understand that view at all. If crime and violence are taking place in Messrs. Harland and Wolff's yard it is not only the right, it is the duty, of the police to stop it. The right hon. Gentleman is on the horns of a dilemma. If he takes the attitude that they have no jurisdiction, then it is a monstrous, illegal, and unconstitutional doctrine. If he admits they have jurisdiction and they were not there to protect the lives of the people, why were they not present? It is not as if this was a mere ebullition of temper, over in half an hour. It has gone on for four days, every day getting worse, and yet on not one of the occasions was there apparently a single member of the Royal Irish Constabulary inside the works to protect the lives and property of the Catholic workmen. I am told that this question of the police on Queen's Island was discussed before Mr. Justice Day's Commission, and that strong representations were made as to the necessity of putting a police barracks upon the island. Certainly that has not been done, and I would urge upon the Government the necessity of taking that course, so that when these disturbances take place
444
—if they ever take place again—the police may be upon the spot in order to deal with them. I may here say that I made the assertion with regard to Mr. Trew making that speech on the Sunday before the riots on what I thought to be very good authority, but I did not like to use names without permission. One of the gentlemen who gave me this information has been telegraphed to, and he has given permission for his name to be mentioned. It is the Rev. Dr. Murphy, of St. George's, Belfast—a Protestant clergyman.
What do I expect the Government to do? I expect them to prosecute the ringleaders, like Trew, to find out the ringleaders in the workshops who organised these attacks, and not to confine their prosecutions to the ignorant men who may have been taken red-handed throwing stones in the streets. In the second place, I ask the Government to put a police barrack on the island, so that they may not be in that ridiculous position of having to admit that although the rioting went on increasing in violence for four days there was not a single member of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the place. If we were dealing with any city or government other than the city of Belfast and the English Government in Ireland, I would have some hope that the mere statement of these facts would prevent the possibility of their recurrence. But I have no such hope in this case. This disgraceful state of things has gone on regularly year by year, Government after Government. It is ridiculous to tell me that the Government cannot put it down. If it were necessary to send an army of 250,000 men to Belfast for the purpose, you would have them better employed than they are in South Africa. If you are not able to put it down, I repeat that you cannot justify your existence. What would happen if these things took place in Cork or Dublin—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Mitchelstown again.]—if a peaceable Protestant procession was attacked in this manner on its way to a religious service in a private ground, and riotous proceedings similar to those in Belfast were Kept up for four days, and then the Government came to the House of

445
Commons and said, "We have done our best; our predecessors have done their best for generations. They failed, and we have failed. We are hopeless of putting this thing down, but we will institute prosecutions here and there"? If the condemnation of the English Government in Ireland rested upon this one fact alone, it would be condemned in the eyes of the whole civilised world. You are able to imprison men in the south and west of Ireland for things which are not comparable with the occurrences in Belfast, but with all the police and the military at your back you are unable to fulfil in Belfast the first duty of a Government—namely, to protect the lives and property of the citizens. I am heartily ashamed of having to deal with this matter at all. I take no pleasure in alluding to the bigotry, intolerance, and cruelty of the Protestants of Belfast. If these things were done by the Catholics in the south I would be in the first rank in condemning them. I take no pleasure in attacking Belfast; it is a great city, and for its greatness I am proud of it. Of the Protestants of Ireland I do not desire to say a single disrespectful word. They have given to the national cause of Ireland some of its greatest heroes. The Protestants of Ireland are not responsible for what has occurred in Belfast. They are, in the main, and growing more so every day, a broadminded set of men. The responsibility rests upon a little intolerant ring—just the same ring which, when Lord Fitzwilliam was Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, succeeded in defeating Catholic emancipation. It is against that little narrow section of bigots, an intolerant and unchristian set of people, that the Government should direct themselves instead of prosecuting two or three miserable tools. If they fail, as their predecessors have failed, then, I repeat, it is impossible to justify their existence at all. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
MR. CLANCY: In seconding the motion for the adjournment of the House I desire to say a very few words; but I hope they will be very plain. My hon. friend who has just sat down said that the responsibility for
446
these outrages in Belfast rested with a small knot of Irishmen whom he sufficiently described. I do not entirely agree with my hon. friend, because my view is that the responsibility is clearly shared by the Government sitting opposite. The reason why these things have been going on from generation to generation is perfectly plain to every Irishman; the law is not for the people of Ireland as a whole, but the law protects one section, and the people are out of it altogether. I was reading the-other day the autobiography of Dean Swift, in which a story was told that, because he was supposed to be in sympathy with the last ministry of Queen Anne, a small ring of the ultra-Protestants of the city of Dublin made a point of attacking him from day to day in the streets; and on one occasion when he went out to a place about seven miles from Dublin, accompanied by two servants, Lord Blake hired a chaise with two horses with the deliberate purpose of riding the Dean down, and when he failed to do that he turned round and struck the Dean's horse. The petition which Dean Swift presented to the Lord Lieutenant was a remarkable forecast of the present crisis. May I read a sentence from that petition.
"Your petitioner is informed that there is no law which can justify a certain noble Lord under cover of his peerage for assaulting any of His Majesty's subjects on the public highway and placing them in fear of their lives."
The complaint of Dean Swift—himself a Protestant of the Protestants—Catholics had reason to echo from generation to generation, and it has re-echoed from generation to generation, no matter what the Government of England is, because the Government in Ireland remains the same—an Orange Tory Government—a Government not for the people but for a section—a Government which violates with impunity the rights of the majority of the people. What happened only last year in Portadown? I brought this question before the House a few months ago, and I warned the right hon. Gentleman that his conduct on that occasion would lead to a renewal of these disturbances from time to time. The Catholics of Portadown—a miserable minority in point of numbers—proposed to exercise their constitutional right to go on an excur

447
sion to a neighbouring town, and they gave the Executive warning that police would be required to protect them on their route. They gave them this warning by letter and by telegram, but that warning was disregarded. After many questions, I succeeded in finding out from the right hon. Gentleman that he made no effort to give protection; and the result was that these Catholics were assaulted, battered, and beaten, and a state of riot existed in that town for several days. Then, of course, when that took place, what did the Orangemen in other parts of Ulster say? They said, "When the Orangemen of Portadown are able to do this with impunity, we can do the same, for the law exists for only one section of the community." The right hon. Gentleman said that these rioters could be prosecuted, but I told the right hon. Gentleman that those prosecutions were a sham, and would continue to be a sham. Take, for instance, those who have been brought up before the magistrates in Belfast. What chance was there of their being convicted, or, if they were convicted, what chance was there of any adequate sentence being passed upon them? Their "pals" were on the bench—the real fomenters and inciters of the disturbance, encouraged by the Government, and many of them were appointed by the present Attorney General. These encouragers and outrage-mongers are placed on the bench and refuse to listen to any evidence against their friends; and then they rise in the height of their virtue and declare that their friends are not guilty, or, if found guilty, they sentence them as street-brawlers to a few weeks' imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman will have to do a great deal more than prosecute; he will have to reform the machinery of the Government of Belfast. If he has the courage of what, I believe, are the right hon. Gentleman's own convictions—for I do him the justice to believe that the right hon. Gentleman despises these people, and does not sympathise with them—he will take much stronger steps, and, if he has not the courage of his convictions, I am ready to suggest the course he ought to take. The first step should be to report the names of every single magistrate in Belfast
448
belonging to the Orange persuasion to the Lord Chancellor, with a recommendation to remove them instantly. I say deliberately that unless the right hon. Gentleman does that he might as well do nothing at all, because all these prosecutions will be a sham, and all these other steps will be equally shams.
One great argument in the Home Rule debates—as I understood it—against Home Rule was that the minority of Protestants outside Ulster would be oppressed by the Home Rule Government. As a matter of fact, they never have been oppressed, and never will be oppressed; but what becomes of the Catholic minority in the North—in Belfast, in Portadown, and one or two other places? They have no more real liberty, no more real protection for their lives and property than if they lived in some savage part of China, where Christian missionaries have been murdered with impunity. When I recollect that in the Home Rule debates the charge made against Irish Members was that they sympathised with crime, because they did not denounce it; when I remember that they were charged before a tribunal, specially selected and constituted for that purpose, with having connived at crime, and not having denounced it, I begin to wonder why it is that the hon. Member for West Belfast sits silent to-day on the Treasury bench in face of the outrages detailed by the hon. Member for Waterford. I say, if I and my colleagues are henceforth to be accused of sympathy with crime because we do not denounce it, why should I not publicly accuse him of sympathy with these outrages in Belfast? If the hon. Gentleman does not avail himself of the position which he occupies in this House, and say that, in his opinion, the outrages that have been perpetrated in Belfast deserve no sympathy, then he sympathises with these crimes. ["Oh, oh!"] I hear some cries on the other side of the House, and I am surprised. I do not understand them. Do hon. Gentleman mean that when crimes are being committed by persons of their own political persuasion their action is not to be challenged, and that they sympathise with those crimes? I observe that hon. Gentlemen now cease to laugh. But the matter

449
is a little more serious. I say it most deliberately, that the failure of hon. Gentlemen opposite who sit silent while these things are being enacted, and fail to protest against these disturbances and crimes, incite their continuance. And if the Government continue to pursue their policy of inaction—and fail on every future occasion, as they have failed in the past, to anticipate these Orange disturbances—[AN HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial benches: They are not Orange disturbances]—if they institute prosecutions which, I maintain, are sham prosecutions, the disturbances will continue, and the only thing that remains for the Catholics of Belfast to do—and I hope they will do it—is to procure arms and defend themselves against those murderous assaults upon them by the Orangemen.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
MR. WYNDHAM: In replying to a question this afternoon as to the disturbances in Belfast, I ventured to deprecate any discussion of the subject at the present moment; and I think that many members on both sides of the House who have listened to the speech just delivered will agree with me that it was not an opportune pronouncement on the eve of the legal proceedings—[An HON. MEMBER on the Irish benches: A legal sham]—which are to be taken against the persons who are held to be responsible for these disturbances. Now, does it assist matters to make an unjustifiable attack upon the magistrates of Belfast, to make an appeal, as the hon. Member has done, to all those party and religious passions which have created the very evil which all men of common sense and of common charity deplore, and to challenge my hon. friend the Member for West Belfast to make some statement in the debate? I feel it due to my hon. friend to say that he asked whether he could intervene in this debate to denounce, with the hon. Member for Waterford, the objectionable and detestable placard that had been scattered broadcast. It has been suggested that the Catholics of Belfast should procure
450
arms and wreak vengeance. I say I was amply justified, not in order to shield the Government but in order that the ends of justice might not be defeated, and that Members' passions might not be excited, in submitting, as I did, that this was not the best occasion for raising a debate upon the riots of Belfast.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, and I am glad to say I cannot urge against that that which I have urged against the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Waterford based his motion for adjournment upon the failure on the part of the Executive to take proper precautions, and in dealing with that charge the hon. Member asked me to reply, stating what action was taken day by day, commencing with Sunday, the 9th. I say that every step that could have been taken was taken. The Irish Government kept itself in close telegraphic communication with Belfast during that period, and had there been such a failure as the hon. Member has attributed to the Government and the police many lives would have been lost, whereas no lives have been lost, and many people would have been seriously injured, whereas only one case of serious injury occurred.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I did not speak of the failure of the Government to take any particular course. I spoke of the failure which was proved by their inability to prevent this affair happening.
MR. WYNDHAM: I will come to that later. I think it is due to the House that I should tell them what occurred, beginning with Sunday. The Lord Mayor of Belfast, the Commissioner of Police, and the magistrates held a conference prior to this procession, and in consequence of the steps that were taken by them, although the procession passed several points at which attacks upon it were attempted by the rabble—for that is what it is; it is not the Orange party—it was able to proceed. The hon. Member himself preferred the charge against the leaders of that party that they did not take proper steps to keep down

451
this disreputable fringe, this riotous element, in the town of Belfast.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, The disreputable fringe of the Protestants of Ireland, as he now calls it, is synonymous in my mind with the Orange party.
MR. WYNDHAM: Again I regret that this subject has been raised this afternoon, because I find myself being led away into making statements which, though I know and believe them to be true, cannot with advantage be made this afternoon. I know that the hon. Member has no justification for stating that the action of the irresponsible rabble in the riots of Belfast is in any way typical of a great, important, and public-spirited party. The arrangements that were made by us for this procession were adequate and successful. The procession proceeded without interruption or serious interference, and although there was a good deal of excitement and some stone-throwing and disorder, these were immediately suppressed by the police, and the city of Belfast remained quiet on Sunday night last. On Monday there was an outbreak of rioting, but owing to the elaborate police arrangements and the calling out of the military the rioting in the Shankhill Road was suppressed by midnight without serious injury to life and property. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Waterford, who has read a number of partisan accounts of these riots—although I admit that one of his authorities was a newspaper which takes an opposite view upon this religious question—
MR. JOHN REDMOND: What religious question?
MR. WYNDHAM: I agree it is an unfortunate expression. I am sorry so sacred a word as religion should be used in these miserable faction fights, but my meaning was perfectly plain, and I really do not think my expression invited the hon. Gentleman's interruption. The hon. Gentleman asks why was not our force sufficient to prevent the riot alto
452
gether; but he knows perfectly well that two hostile mobs live in Belfast in close proximity to each other, and are so organised that they can be called out at a moment's notice, and he also knows perfectly well that if provision had not been made there would have been loss of life that night.
I pass on to the Tuesday and Wednesday. On those days disgraceful attacks were made on certain workmen in Harland and Wolff's yard. I gave all the information upon that subject that I could obtain in reply to the question asked me, and I do not propose to add anything more to what I said then. I say now that my conviction is that no step would have been a more mistaken one than to have arranged for a body of policemen to patrol the yard where during eleven months and three weeks of the year the men in that yard work in perfect peace and amity. Anything more unhappy than these collisions it is impossible to conceive, but when they occur the law must be enforced. On the question as to what further steps are to be taken, I assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government intend to take every step in their power. We are determined to put this sort of thing down, and it shall be put down; but is this an opportune moment to discuss those steps? Is it wise, when feeling runs high in Belfast, for us here to talk of the number of police that we have available, or of the necessity of keeping the military there for the next few days or the next few weeks, and to arraign a Government which declares that, in the first place, it is instituting, legal proceedings, and, in the second, it is in consultation with the authorities of Belfast as to what further steps will be necessary to maintain perfect order there? Such a thing does not assist the Government or the object which I am sure the hon. Member for Waterford has at heart. I have already stated in reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member that I do not propose to name any persons against whom it is proposed to proceed, but the hon. Member has himself named Mr. Trew. Now, I will not let it go forth that justice is to be affected by this discussion. Before this discussion I refused to give any names. I now say that Mr. Trew is to be pro

453
ceeded against. I do not say whether he is guilty or not guilty. I merely say his action during the last few days has rendered it a reasonable thing for the Government to call him to account for what he has done. If he can prove that his action had nothing to do with this matter, and was perfectly right, so much the better for Mr. Trew; but this House is not to constitute itself a revolutionary tribunal. Passing from prosecutions and legal proceedings to military and police steps to be taken for the preservation of order, I must say that in my opinion steps must be taken occasionally in Belfast of a military character, but I regard them only as a palliative of the evil and regrettable necessity. These troops ought now to be free to pursue their own profession.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, to pursue De Wet.
MR. WYNDHAM: I mention that aspect of the matter because it was some time ago urged that the police were unpopular and the military were popular, and that we should, therefore, police the north of Ireland by the military. I decline to accept that view; you cannot take away a battalion during two months of its training season from its proper work without involving great loss upon the taxpayers of this country, who are entitled to receive full value for their money. Therefore I hold it is necessary to take such other steps as may lead one to hope, though it does not do to be too sanguine, that those persons who were responsible for working up these unfortunate men to a state of maddened excitement would become sensible of the gravity of their action, would realise that they were not good citizens, and that their conduct was reprehensible, and would realise that those who agree with them in politics and many other questions dissent entirely from them when they misuse their convictions and madden the mob until they commit these deplorable excesses. The hon. Member for Waterford endeavoured to draw a distinction between the action of the Government in Belfast and their action in the south of Ireland. No such distinction can, in my opinion, be drawn.
454
The people of all parties and of all faiths have, in my opinion, the right to express their views, and to observe, if they please, political and ecclesiastical anniversaries, provided they do so in such a way as not to cause a breach of the peace, and that is the rule which governs the action of the Executive in the south of Ireland as in the north of Ireland. The Government do not take into account the political or ecclesiastical views or the motives of those who endanger the public peace. They regard only the probable consequences of their action. This is a police matter, not a political or a religious matter, and it is one question, whether in the north or in the south of Ireland. And, both in the north and in the south of Ireland, I am able to say to the House that, in my opinion, the Government do not favour one party or the other by a hairbreadth. All they are careful of is the maintenance of law and order.
MR. HAVILAND-BURKEsaid that in his plausible explanation, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had entirely evaded the main point of the indictment brought against the Executive by the hon. Member for Waterford, which was, not that the police failed to be on the spot to suppress an outbreak of riot, but that, having had ample warning of the riot, they neglected to take the precautions it was incumbent upon them to take, and when the riot had broken out in its full and savage brutality they failed to appear, not for an hour, but for days, while the riot grew fiercer and the maltreatment of the Catholics grew more violent and more brutal. He accepted the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman and his declaration of disgust at the leaflet of which the Catholics of Belfast had so much reason to complain. It would have been more to the point if the printers of that leaflet had, instead of "God save the King," printed at the bottom "God save Protestantism from such Protestants as these." Every police station in Ireland had a stock of proclamations of public meetings with spaces left blank for the dates, and the statement that such a meeting was likely to cause boycotting or intimidation What meeting was more calculated to

455
cause intimidation than this scandalous leaflet, which was scattered broadcast over Belfast on the night before the riot? He accepted the statement that the placard was torn down by the police, but why did not the police take precautionary measures to protect the Catholics on the very day when this act of ruffianism broke out?
MR. WYNDHAM: They did, and they were successful.
MR. HAVILAND-BURKEsaid that in that case they did not maintain their vigilance. The right hon. Gentleman's first statement was very remarkable. He said the police could not control the harbour without the assistance of the military. That gave the House a picture of the unbridled lawlessness and ruffianism which generations of Irish Secretaries had allowed to exist in Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was impossible for the police to show themselves in the harbour without the assistance of the military. What a confession of impotence! When thousands of the lives of His Majesty's Catholic subjects are menaced, to say that the police could not patrol a particular district without the aid of the military! The right hon. Gentleman said that too much police patrol would cause needless irritation. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to be needlessly irritated he had only to become a Nationalist Member and attempt to address his constituents in certain portions of Ireland. He had been to places where hundreds of armed men had been on the spot because it was said that such a meeting might create intimidation. The same sauce which was served out to the Nationalist goose should be served to the Orange gander. What the Nationalists wanted was the ruffianism at Belfast to cease, and they looked to the Chief Secretary and the Executive to take measures which were infinitely more prompt and effective than those which, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, they had taken when this outrage on the religious susceptibilities of the Catholics of Belfast was perpetrated in the leaflet to which allusion had been made. There was a sturdy little Protestant colony in the
456
constituency which he represented, but no riots ever occurred at Tullamore, because there the community was not brought up year after year in the belief that it was safer to break a Catholic head than a Protestant window! There was some attempt at impartiality in the administration of the law. In conclusion he might say he had not stood up to direct a malicious attack upon any Minister, but only to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the terrible riot of 1886 began in exactly the same way as the riots now under discussion, and to say that something more than the prosecution of a few poor corner-boys was needed to establish anything like the semblance of law in Belfast. It was useless to prosecute a few stone-throwers and not strike at the men who publicly initiated the attack against Catholics simply because they were Catholics.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMS: I desire to acknowledge the considerate terms in which the Leader of the Irish party has spoken of the services which the Protestants of Ireland have rendered in the struggles of the Irish people to recover their lost rights. I heartily believe that the respectable Protestants of Ireland, whether in Belfast or in any other province, condemn the proceedings which have recently disgraced Belfast as strongly as any person can possibly do. It is rather remarkable that so far not a single Member for the northern provinces of Ireland has yet seen fit to take part in this debate, to repudiate the disgraceful state of things which produced this riot. While there may be some allowance made for some members of the Government not taking part in this debate, I should have thought that some of those unofficial members of the House who are closely and intimately connected with Belfast would have felt it to be their duty to rise in this House and denounce in the strongest possible terms the conduct of men who I, as a Protestant, am ashamed to think are classed as my coreligionists. I say that it is a disgrace to Protestants that these riots should be carried out by Protestants. If there is anything at all in Protestantism it is a

457
desire to secure perfect freedom for every man to exercise his own religious belief. The Catholics of Belfast felt it to be their duty to take part in a religious ceremony inside the walls of a college, and their procession was attacked by men who call themselves Protestants. Therefore I think it is the duty of every right-minded Protestant who glories in the freedom which is the real foundation of Protestantism to rise in this House and dissociate himself from those wretched men who have brought disgrace upon Protestantism. I have just heard the Chief Secretary state that he intends to put down these proceedings in Belfast. We shall look with much curiosity to see what means are taken to accomplish this end. We shall watch with interest the prosecutions which the Government will initiate, not against those few misguided individuals who have disgraced that city, but against those persons who are behind those unfortunate men, and who have incited them to commit these acts which have disgraced the city of Belfast. As an Irish Protestant, I have risen to take part in the debate in order to thank the Member for Waterford for his kind expressions towards Protestants, and I feel that I should be false to my convictions if I did not express my opinion from my place in the House of Commons.
SIR ROBERT REID: I only wish to occupy a few moments in order to say why I intend to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Waterford. I intend to do so as a protest against the constant troubles in Belfast, which I have heard of from time to time, ever since I have had a seat in this House, and which I think are a disgrace to our system of government. On this occasion complaints have been made that there have not been adequate prosecutions in past times. It is also complained that the magistrates are biased or partial in their administration of the law. Of course, all those things are denied, and no doubt the Chief Secretary for Ireland thinks he has taken proper precautions, and he believes in the impartiality of the magistrates. There must, however, be a screw loose somewhere. What seems to me to be absolutely unintelligible is that people engage
458
in a discreditable riot, which is denounced by the Chief Secretary and everybody else, which it ought to be within the power of the law to put down, and yet it does not seem to be put down. What would the Attorney General do in England if he found a local authority did not put down rioting? He would take care that a large number of those persons who were the ringleaders in getting up religious riots were prosecuted. Of course, it is not necessary to prosecute everybody, but the law should direct its shafts towards the ringleaders and towards those who are most highly placed. The Chief Secretary has stated in language which I listened to with satisfaction that these riots shall be put down, and that this state of things shall not be permitted to continue. If he will direct his weapons against the ringleaders and the persons who instigated these disgraceful scenes, that will be the most effective method to adopt. Everybody will watch with considerable interest the steps the Chief Secretary takes to put down these riots, and I hope he will take care to punish those who are really guilty.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: My hon. and learned friend who has just sat down has made the statement that these riots are condemned by every reasonable man in this House and in Ireland. That statement compels me to call attention to a fact which I think is very remarkable in the course of this debate. We have had a repudiation of these riots from the Chief Secretary and from hon. Members on the Irish benches, both Catholic and Protestant. But although this debate has gone on for some time, and there are Members in the House associated with Belfast and with the organisation which was the root and origin of these riots, the debate is apparently about to close without a word of repudiation, and without a syllable of condemnation from them, of these disgraceful proceedings. I waited for the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh to rise—
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I will follow you.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was very unwilling to join in this debate, because the case had been so ably, stated by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford and other hon. Members who have spoken, but I think my rising will have been more than justified if it elicits some words from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Now that he is going to rise after me, may I suggest some subjects to which he may direct his remarks? The Chief Secretary says that the Protestants of Ireland are to be held free from responsibility for these riots. That statement was also made by the hon. Member for Waterford. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that in my opinion the Protestants of Ireland in future will play as great and honourable a part in the self government of Ireland as any other religious section of the community. Religious discussions in Ireland are not raised from the point of view of making wider and deeper the gulf which lies between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. The Chief Secretary went on to say that he was able to relieve not merely the Protestant body of responsibility for these riots, but also that section known as the Orange Society. Here I am sorry to say I could not agree with him, and if I wanted a contradiction and repudiation of this statement I could find it in his own speech. He says that for eleven months in the year Catholics and Protestants are able to get on well together, and that even in the Belfast Dockyards, where one-eighth of the men are Catholics, they are able to work in peace side by side for eleven months in the year. Everybody acquainted with the north of Ireland knows that that is perfectly true. There is one month of the year, however, which seems to bring out all those ancient feuds and unchristian passions. That month would pass away like other months if religious feuds were not resurrected from their graves by men of repute and position, who make it their business to make speeches, call meetings, and use all the old weapons by which those religious feuds can be revived and religious passions excited. Even the hon. Member for South Belfast excuses his absence from this House on the ground that he has to be in Ireland on the 12th of July. On that date probably the right
460
hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh will be addressing Orange Lodges in Ireland and arousing religious passions.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep to the specific point before the House. He is now entering into a discussion about what happens on the 12th of July. That is out of order, and it is undesirable to discuss it now.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: We say that every precaution has been taken by us to prevent these riots, and may I not make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to make speeches which arouse religious passion in Ireland and which we hold are the origin of the riots? It is a little too bad that we should have to come here year after year and make the same complaint in regard to these riots and always get the same answer. I remember these riots when a boy at college in 1886, and every five years since that time we have had the same riots and the same promises to put them down. The Chief Secretary says the law is administered in the same way in the north as in the south of Ireland. I dare say that is his intention, but as far as the facts are concerned it is not so. These riots would never take place in Belfast at all if the rioters did not feel that the strong arm of the law would not be raised against them.
MR. WYNDHAM: No, no!
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Chief Secretary denies this, but I have seen Protestant magistrates in the north of Ireland leading mobs, and the very next day those gentlemen were not ashamed to take their places upon the magisterial bench to administer what they called impartial justice to Catholics. The only occasion in my life when I was seriously assailed by a mob was in the north of Ireland, and the gentlemen who took part in it were pointed out to me as members of the magisterial bench.
MR. WYNDHAMdissented.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Chief Secretary shakes his head and gives me that solemn negative which Chief Secretaries always give to unpleasant facts. In this country people know that they have to face the law, and that it will be enforced if they do not obey it, but in the north of Ireland the Protestant feels that the law is his friend and protector in riotous proceedings. Ireland must be in a very bad way if the Government cannot rule without resorting to such methods. There is something to be admired in a Government which is determined at any cost to preserve the rights of every individual and the maintenance of law and order. Let the Chief Secretary adopt that principle in the north of Ireland. I hope this debate will have three useful results: (1) the repudiation by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh of the men who are guilty of these gross and brutal acts of cowardice; (2) a greater vigilance on the part of the Government than they have hitherto shown; and (3) most important of all, I hope this discussion will bring home to the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the people of this country that, if there is any danger of religious servitude and bigotry in Ireland, it would come not from the Catholics, but from those who persecute them.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I can assure the hon. Member who has just sat down that it is not the habit of the party to which I belong to make any allusion to the faith of those who are opposed to us, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to go through the speeches which I have made during the last twenty years and produce one single instance where I have ever uttered one syllable which is insulting to the faith to which the majority of Irishmen belong. It is not the habit of myself, or the organisation to which I belong, to do that. I am perfectly well aware that hon. Gentlemen look upon it almost as an insult if we take a strong Protestant line. We are Protestants, and we are not ashamed of it. We proclaim it, and we intend to stand by it in Ireland and in this country. As for insulting or inciting the Irish
462
people to attack their fellow-countrymen, that is not our habit. If hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that this ill-feeling shall permanently cease, a good deal rests with them. Let them abandon their insane policy of Home Rule, which nobody believes in either in Ireland or in this country. It is merely a political cry which fills the Irish benches. But there is really nothing in Home Rule, and why not abandon it?
*MR. SPEAKER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not extend this limited debate to Home Rule.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I will not pursue that question or my speech in that direction. As one of the Orange leaders, I utterly repudiate, as I know they also repudiate and abhor, any such proceedings as have been described. Protestants claim a perfect freedom and right which, I believe, all the King's subjects claim to hold their faith, and, if they choose, to proclaim it. We agree that our fellow-countrymen have a right to celebrate any religious ceremony which they believe they ought to perform. These riots in Belfast, unfortunately, occasionally recur. I deplore this, but these riots are invariably got up by boys and girls under eighteen. They are never got up by the leaders of any party, and amongst those who are now being tried or have been tried in Belfast you will not find one single member of the Orange organisation. [Nationalist cheers, and AN HON. MEMBER; No; they will not touch them.] I challenge contradiction of the statement I have made. No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that an Orangeman is seldom brought before the magistrates, and if he is he is generally acquitted. There is not one syllable of truth in such a statement. As one of the leaders of the Orange organisation, I say that Orangemen themselves and those who are under our discipline take no part whatever in riots of this kind, and we deplore them as heartily as hon. Members opposite. Therefore I hope that I have satisfied my hon. friend opposite that the leaders of the party to which I belong and myself deplore and condemn as strongly as he does

463
these unfortunate proceedings. I only hope that good sense will prevail in Belfast, and that these people will see that those who are really injured by such proceedings are not the co-religionists of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is their own faith which is covered with obloquy and disgrace.
MR. FIELD: If the right hon. Gentleman when he goes to Belfast would repeat the statements he has made in this House I am quite certain that they would have a much greater effect than any debate here, because there can be no question whatever that it is only when Orange festivals come about that these riots take place. It is always about the 12th of July.
COLONEL SAUNDERSONdissented from that statement.
MR. FIELD: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection and my own do not agree. I think it is generally about the 12th of July that the Orangemen decide to have a night in Belfast. It seems to me most intolerable that in this age of free thought and civilisation the occurrence of a procession within Catholic grounds should be made a reason for such proceedings as those which happened in Belfast during the past few days. I have always preached toleration. I do not care what a man's religion is, he has a right to the free exercise of his
religion irrespective of his political party, and it appears to me that the Orangemen of Belfast ought to allow Catholics the liberty to exercise their religion, which is almost the only liberty left to them in Ireland. I trust that the result of this debate will be that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be in earnest in what he has proclaimed this evening. Those who have studied the question for years past know very well that the administration of the law is not evenhanded in Ireland. Those of us who have taken part in Nationalist demonstrations know very well that in various parts of Ireland the same liberty is not accorded in the south and west that is freely given to the Orangemen in Belfast. I have no desire to quarrel with Orangemen. I cannot understand why such proceedings as occurred at Belfast should take place. I could understand if they took place in Africa. If meetings are to be put down in Nationalist quarters in Ireland the same law should be carried out in Belfast. I trust that the result of this discussion will be that the Chief Secretary will carry out the law in all parts of Ireland in an evenhanded manner, and that he will bring to an end those unfortunate riots between Catholics and Protestants in Belfast, which are a disgrace to the community.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 182. (Division List No. 254.)

Murnaghan, George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Nannetti, Joseph P.

O'Shee, James John

Stevenson, Francis S.

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

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Sullivan, Donal

Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, G'wer

Norman, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

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

Reckitt, Harold James

Wallace, Robert

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Reddy, M.

Weir, James Galloway

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East),

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

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

O'Dowd, John

Robson, William Snowdon

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

O'Malley, William

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

O'Mara, James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Duke, Henry Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lowe, Francis William

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Arrol, Sir William

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Finch, George H.

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

Baird, John George Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Majendie, James A. H.

Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christchurch

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Malcolm, Ian

Banbury, Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Maxwell, W J H. (Dumfriesshire

Bigwood, James

Garfit, William

Mitchell, William

Bill, Charles

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Butcher, John George

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Cautley, Henry Strother

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pierpoint, Robert

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Chapman, Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Helder, Augustus

Plummer, Walter R.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Henderson, Alexander

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Higginbottom, S. W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hogg, Lindsay

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Purvis, Robert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Rankin, Sir James

Cranborne, Viscount

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rasch, Maj. Frederick Carne

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Reid, James (Greenock)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cust, Henry John C.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kimber, Henry

Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Knowles, Lees

Ropner, Col. Robert

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Round, James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Law, Andrew Bonar

Russell, T. W.

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Lawson, John Grant

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sassoon, Sir Edw. Albert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

NEW BILL.
  SMALL HOLDINGS (IRELAND).
  Bill to increase the area of Small Holdings in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Nolan, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. James O'Kelly, and Mr. Conor O'Kelly.
  SMALL HOLDINGS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To increase the area of Small Holdings in Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 24th June, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY].

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  1. £2,684,000, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, Etc.—Personnel.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I ask leave to rise at this stage of the proceedings as I have a statement to make on the Vote, which may shorten discussion. There are several points in which hon. Members are interested with regard to the personnel of the dockyards. One matter which has on many previous occasions led to considerable discussion in this House has reference to the rate of wages paid to the dockyard labourers. The history of the existing rate of wages
  468
  is well known to Members of the House. The difficulty arose owing to a change in the wages of the War Office labourers at Woolwich Arsenal. At Woolwich there were labourers in the employment of the Admiralty working side by side with those employed by the War Office and receiving 1s. a week less. As that anomaly could not continue, the labourers of the Admiralty at Woolwich were paid the same wages as those of the War Office. But that led to another anomaly. The workmen at Deptford, which is nearer to London, were then receiving a lower rate of wages than the men at Woolwich. At first, in view of what was the current rate of wages, the Admiralty did not see their way to make the alteration desired by many hon. Members, and to give an extra shilling to the Deptford labourers. There were two grounds. In the first place, they were not clear that the concession was demanded by the state of the labour market, and, further, they were not at that time, in view of the rate of wages prevailing, prepared to accept the natural consequence of any alteration in the Deptford wages, and of adding to the wages of the labourers in all the Government dockyards. But the matter has now been carefully considered, the rates of wages prevailing in other parts of the country and in London have been examined, and it has been decided to concede an extra shilling a week to the labourers at Deptford. As a necessary corollary, a similar rise will be given to the labourers in all the Admiralty dockyards. I speak of this as a necessary corollary, because as hon. Members are aware, the principle has already been admitted that there is a distinction between the rate of wages in London and the rate in the provinces. That distinction in respect to labourers is held to be represented by the sum of

  469
  a shilling. Therefore it would be impossible, in the face of the recommendation—which was the recommendation of a strong Committee—to give the increase at Deptford and not give it to the labourers in the other dockyards.
  The next point I wish to say a word about, with the view of shortening debate, is the matter of dockyard petitions. There are hon. Members who represent dockyard workers and others who have often brought before this House questions which have been pressed upon them with regard to shipwrights. The shipwrights are a most important body of men in the dockyards, and there can be no doubt that in some respects they have not hitherto been on all fours, as regards wages, with other skilled labourers who may be called approximately of the same class in the dockyards. There has existed among the shipwrights a system of classification, according to their actual or supposed professional merit, which has been recognised by a larger of smaller wage. The wage itself has not always been held to compare favourably with that of workmen of a similar class, and this has given rise to a good deal of dissatisfaction. It has now been decided to remove, as far as we can remove, that source of dissatisfaction, and we propose to abolish the classification of shipwrights and to raise the rate of pay in the following degrees:—The established shipwrights, at present receiving 32s., will receive 33s.; the hired shipwrights, at present receiving 33s. 6d., will receive 34s. 6d.; and the probationers, now receiving 31s. 6d., will receive 32s. 6d. By granting these concessions we shall give a substantial increase to by far the larger number of shipwrights. There will be a very small number who will not gain the full shilling owing to the fact that they are now receiving somewhat more than the bulk of the men with whom they work. There have been two other sources of petitions affecting another class. One has been with reference to the recorders of work. They are an important body of men, because they are entrusted with responsible functions. It is their duty to investigate the work done by their colleagues in the same or a kindred trade, and to report, for the purpose of estimating the amount of piecework earn
  470
  ings for the work performed. In view of the recent increase granted to charge men this responsibility was no longer adequately compensated by the wages they received, which was by an allowance of 6d. a day duty pay. Now we have raised that remuneration from 6d. to 1s. The last class to which I wish to refer are the machinists and spinners—the women engaged in the rope-works at Chatham and Deptford. A considerable class of women engaged in dockyards are those known as color-women, and they have been hitherto receiving a wage in excess of that paid to the other women engaged as machinists and spinners. Machinists and spinners have hitherto received a wage varying from 11s. to 15s. a week. It is now proposed to raise the wage to a sum varying from 13s. 6d. to 18s. a week, thus placing them on the same terms as colorwomen. These are substantial concessions, which have been desired by Members of this House, and which we are now convinced the present state of the labour market makes it reasonable for us to concede. There has been of course an enormous number of individual petitions. I have thought it my duty to peruse all of them. I am sure the Committee will not desire that I should give a reply now to individual petitions. Answers will be sent in due course to petitioners whose petitions have been acceded to.
  In the matter of boilers in the ships, there has been a further readjustment since my hon. friend made his statement on the subject. I hope it is not out of order to refer to this, but I have not given to the House on other occasions lists of the ships which were to be boilered. I may say that it has been found impracticable under the rule laid down by ourselves to put new, boilers into the "Donegal," the "Cumberland," and the "Prince of Wales"; but on the other hand it has been decided to take out the existing boilers of the "Hermes."
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It will not be convenient to discuss boilers on this Vote.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: We generally

  471
  have on first reaching the Vote for the shipbuilding yards some general discussion. I understand from you, Sir, that is not to be the case to-day.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think that has generally been the case when Section 2 or 3 has been taken first. Possibly it will be convenient to discuss Sections 2 and 3 together, because they deal with shipbuilding and boilers. I think it would be inconvenient to discuss shipbuilding on the Vote before us.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not think I need say any more now, having drawn attention to the changes we propose to make with regard to the wages of labourers.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it was perhaps unfortunate that the Government had not followed the usual course of taking first either Section 2 or 3, on which the programme of the year could be discussed. He sincerely trusted that they might not occupy the whole evening discussing the personnel, the more so because the first matter with which his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty dealt at greatest length had generally been discussed on another Vote. He had heard with pleasure of the small advance granted to the labourers at Deptford, for that had been the worst case in the whole range of labour employment by the Government. The present increase ought to have been given three or four years ago. Having no personal interest in the matter, having a constituency interested the other way, and having inquired into the circumstances, he considered that the case of Deptford and Woolwich was an extraordinarily strong case of where the pay was terribly too low. The only doubt he had in his mind in connection with the gratifying announcement which had been made was whether the men at Devonport, in view of the peculiar circumstances attendant upon living there, ought not to be put on the London scale. He believed it was as dear a place as, London for the men. He rather doubted whether the other concession would be sufficient to remove the difficulties which had stood in the way of
  472
  the Admiralty obtaining the services of first class shipwrights.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to express his satisfaction that, after the long and weary campaign which had been waged on behalf of the underpaid men in the dockyards, the Admiralty had seen their way to take a step in the right direction, and to make these concessions. The Devonport case had been well known in the House. The condition of the men there was altogether different from that in any other Government yard, and he submitted that there was a case for further inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether they were entitled to the same consideration as was given to the men in the London yards. He thanked his hon. friend for what he had done, but was he to understand that the shilling concession would apply to hired hands and to skilled labourers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No; the skilled labourers are on a totally different footing.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the skilled labourers as a whole starved on a very low wage, while the ordinary labourers had the benefit of this concession.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the skilled labourers on regular wages were paid on an average 24s. per week, and a large number on piece work earned from 24s. to 32s. a week.
  MR. KEARLEYadmitted that the average wage was about 24s. per week, but he maintained that the Government would not get the most desirable men so long as they were paid an unequal wage for doing the same work. He believed the Government were right in abolishing classification amongst the shipwrights, but why limit it to that one trade only? Were the joiners less concerned in this principle of classification than the shipwrights? The logical conclusion was to carry the abolition of classification to all trades. The Government could not get skilled labour in these other trades unless they paid proper wages. Lord Goschen, then

  473
  Mr. Goschen, promised in this House in March, 1890, that the whole conditions in regard to pay of the labourers in the Government dockyards would be revised. That promise had not been carried out, and he thought that there should be a general inquiry. Of course the conditions of labour had changed during the last ten years, and if the Government wanted to get the best skill it would be necessary to adopt the scale of wages paid to similar trades in private yards. As to the question of arrears of construction, could he raise it under the present Vote?
  *THE CHAIRMANthought it would be more convenient to take the point of arrears of construction on the Shipbuilding Vote.
  MR. KEARLEYasked whether he would be in order in calling attention to some matters referred to in the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts as to the lack of expenditure of money which had been voted for shipbuilding by the House.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in raising that question on this Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR MORTONsaid he wished to express his acknowledgment and thanks to the Government for the concessions which the Secretary to the Admiralty had announced, and he was quite sure these would be received with great gratitude by the workmen in the dockyards.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONdesired to add his acknowledgment to the Secretary to the Admiralty for the concession he had made—a larger one than had been made since Lord Spencer was First Lord of the Admiralty. But while the hired men received a slightly higher rate of pay, they received a smaller advantage than the establishment men in the way of pension. In fact they did not receive a pension at all; they received only a bonus. The hired men constituted 75 per cent. of the whole employees of the Government, whereas thirty or forty years ago they were half. Again, an the old days the hired men were practi
  474
  cally only taken on for the job, and when the job was finished they expected to be dismissed. It was not out of consideration for the men that the Government now gave them practically continuous employment, but from the necessities of the Government, although the rate of wages for hired men was distinctly lower than was paid to a similar class of workmen in private yards. The real question was what was the service of these men worth. He would suggest that the Government labourers were worth sixpence an hour, as much as the labourers in private yards. It was rather an ungracious thing to look a gift horse in the mouth, but he would like the Secretary to the Admiralty to extend the same concessions which he had made to the shipwrights to other trades, particularly to the joiners, ship-riggers, store-house labourers, and others, which were very markedly paid at a lower rate than in private yards. The hon. Gentleman had got a petition from these trades before him, in which they fairly and accurately set out the rate of pay in private yards as compared with that paid in Government yards, and he would like the hon. Member to make a statement as to what he was prepared to do in regard to the other trades besides the shipwrights.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid there was a matter of principle connected with this particular Vote on which he wished to ask a question, and to make a few observations. He referred to the naval staffs employed at the different naval stations abroad. It was almost impossible to recognise that any principle of policy was pursued as to personnel ashore on stations abroad. For example, in the days of wooden ships, and when the main colonial trade of this country was with the West Indies, Jamaica was an important station. There they now had a commodore and a commander, and altogether £4,000 a year was spent on the personnel of the naval establishment at Port Royal. But in these days of iron; steel, and steam, Jamaica could only be regarded as a very small and insignificant station. Now, at Halifax, the headquarters of this North American and West Indian fleet, there was only a civil store keeper in charge. That seemed a somewhat

  475
  ridiculous position. Both at Halifax and at Esquimault they should have a naval officer of superior rank in charge of the station, who could be getting all the information possible to be obtained, so as to prepare for the coming time of colonial co-operation. Again, he noticed that they were spending as much on the personnel at Jamaica as at Gibraltar. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to throw some light on what was the principle of general policy in regard to the distribution of the naval staffs on shore on the different stations abroad.
  MR. DUKEsaid that formerly the men in the dockyards had the privilege of approaching the Lords of the Admiralty, and bringing to their notice what they regarded as their grievances as to pay and position. In recent years they had lost that privilege, but there was left to them the right of petition, and that right they had exercised. Hon. Members who came into contact with the employees in the dockyards knew that they did not exercise that right of petition without cause, as had been witnessed that night by the concessions made. But sometimes for two years together the men who had forwarded petitions to the Admiralty, setting out clearly the terms of their grievances, had got no sort of reply. He knew that that was a source of much irritation, and he thought it would be a great satisfaction to large bodies of men employed in the dockyards if, within a reasonable time after they had addressed their petitions to the Admiralty, they were informed whether anything was to be done in the matter of redressing their grievances.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the practice was to communicate with the men in all cases where their petitions could be acceded to. But when the large number of petitions frequently forwarded to the Admiralty, and the small points often brought up, was considered, it would be seen that it was very difficult to answer every one of them personally. The object of the concession of extra pay to the shipwrights was not to achieve the abolition of classification but to give them a
  476
  just pay. That had levelled up the whole of the shipwrights in a particular way, and it had practically the effect of abolishing classification; but that was not the object of the change. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great, Yarmouth had suggested a readjustment of the personnel on shore at the different stations abroad. During the short time he had had experience at the Admiralty he observed that the tendency was that the naval stations which were really becoming important had received additions to their personnel, and the contrary was the case with those stations which had ceased to be important. It was a matter of opinion whether this particular survival of maintaining, superior officers at Jamaica should be continued. He acknowledged that Jamaica was now of nothing like the importance it once occupied as a naval station; but it was isolated, and was still of considerable importance in relation not only to the West Indian islands, but to our colonies on the mainland of South America. He would also point out that Port Royal, Jamaica, was much further off from any foreign country than Halifax. He believed there was justice in the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if his hon. and gallant, friend would assist him in the matter he would be much obliged.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he had not argued so much for the reduction of the staff at Port Royal, but for increasing the naval staffs at Halifax, Simon's Bay, and Esquimault, and putting a senior officer in charge there, thereby giving them better opportunities of keeping in touch with what was going on.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid that the distinction between the hired men and the establishment men having practically ceased to exist, he wanted to know whether the Government could not give the hired men some sort of a pension after, as some of them had given, thirty years service.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That a sum, not exceeding £5,306,500,

  477
  be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Material for Shipbuilding Repairs, Maintenance, &c., including, the cost of Establishments of Dockyard, and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Perhaps with the acquiescence of the House, and for the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Gateshead, I might, in continuance of the brief statement which I made in an earlier stage of the debate, say that a slight alteration will have to be made. In the statement I made to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the change of boilers in His Majesty's ships I included three ships, the "Donegal," "Cumberland," and "Prince of Wales," in which the Admiralty hoped to substitute some other type of water-tube boiler without great expense; but, having investigated the matter and approached the firms that are contracting for the propelling machinery and boilers for these ships, the Admiralty find they cannot satisfy the conditions they have imposed on themselves in making the change, and so these vessels, in order to avoid the postponement of the completion of them, which would be a most disastrous thing, have been withdrawn from the list previously given. But I am glad to say we are able to eliminate from the other list the "Hermes." As the Committee knows, the "Hermes" is a ship belonging to a class of four fitted with Belleville boilers. She is a ship with an unfortunate career, which has been animadverted upon more than once in the House. She has returned to this country in a condition which necessitated serious repairs to her boilers, and the Admiralty has now decided that instead of replacing her boilers with a reinstallation of Belleville boilers the boilers in her shall be removed and another type of boiler put in. Their policy is, I believe, to adopt the Niclausse. There will then be the opportunity for a useful and scientifically accurate experiment, the "Hyacinth" and the "Hermes" being built on the same lines, having similar engines, with the same calculated horse power. It is pro
  478
  posed further to alter the boilers of the "Medea" and the "Medusa."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had been desired by the hon. Member for Gateshead, who was in possession when the House adjourned, to proceed with some observations which he (Mr. Robertson) desired to make upon this Vote. He proposed to take the somewhat unusual course of moving a reduction of the Shipbuilding Vote in reference to the building of the royal yacht. This vessel had a most unfortunate history. In the year 1897 the First Lord of the Admiralty came down to the House with a proposal for the construction of a new royal yacht. Exception was taken that if the yacht was to be built it should be built in such a way as to constitute an addition to the naval force of the country. The suggestion was that the example of Germany should be followed, and that she should be built on the lines of a first-class cruiser. Had that course been followed there would not have been so miserable a tale to unfold as he would unfold to-night. Had the royal yacht been built as a man-of-war, the officials with whom the building of her was entrusted would have been dealing with a subject in which they had had long experience, but that suggestion was never regarded by the Admiralty; it was received with something like derision. It really appeared as if the new Imperialism, then just coming to the front, had decreed that this new addition to the Navy List should deliberately be made useless for naval purposes. The money voted for the Navy should be expended in perfecting the efficiency of the Navy.
  In the Estimates for 1897–8 there were no particulars as to the total cost of the proposed new royal yacht. A sum was taken, but Mr. Goschen was unable to give an approximate estimate of the total cost. In the following year there was an Estimate, according to which this vessel was to cost £237,000; in the next year a final Estimate was produced of £353,000; in 1900–1 the Estimate had bounded up to £434,582, and this year the total asked for by the Admiralty for this ship was over half a million. It reminded one, in a small way, of the leaps and bounds by which the

  479
  Estimates for the war rose. Whether this was a full and final Estimate he did not know, but he had some impression that even this £512,000 was likely to be exceeded. The increase of the Estimate for the building of this ship was a reflex of the career through which she had passed before she was fit for any service. He was unable to go into the details of the history of the royal yacht, and his motion was made for the purpose of obtaining some information. The vessel was, he believed, laid down in December, 1897, in the Pembroke Dockyard, and he believed her engines and boilers were put on board while she was in dry dock in Pembroke Dockyard, but, at all events, directly they were put on board and the vessel launched, the vessel capsized in dock, and she had been in the hands of the dockyard ever since. How nearly she might now be fit for service was not within his knowledge. One minor detail to which he would draw attention because it deserved consideration was that the wood employed in her construction was what was called non-inflammable; what device was used to make it so he did not know, but it was a total failure, and moisture was continually oozing from the wood, and some process had to be adopted to take out the moisture which had been pressed into it to render it non-inflammable. He drew attention to that point because it was a new experiment that was made upon a vessel to be constructed for the use of the Sovereign, and which the Government had refused to make useful for the Navy, and apparently had made useless for the purpose for which it was designed to serve, and no experiments ought, in his opinion, to be made upon such a vessel. So far as he had been able to mention the facts they were not such as to reflect credit upon the Dockyard authorities responsible.
  The two gentlemen responsible for the Vote were, of course, perfectly free from all responsibility, and he had not the least intention of fixing upon them any responsibility for what had taken place in the past, not did he, in making the request he was about to make, intend to blame anybody, because he did not know enough about the history of the vessel, or who was to blame for the blunders; who was responsible for the thing going wrong
  480
  he could not say, except the Admiralty as a whole. The blame that attached to the Admiralty attached to it on the ground that the vessel ought to have been built on the lines of a man-of-war, and that, if not, she should have been constructed by persons who had had some experience of that class of work. What he wanted the hon. Gentleman to do was to give some explanation of the present position of the yacht, and say what more required to be done, if anything, and generally to fill in the sketch which he had made, and tell the House something more about it than any hon. Member could pretend to know.
  His second request was of a more serious and novel character, and it was because of its novelty that he took the responsibility of moving the reduction. He desired to ask the hon. Gentlemen representing the Admiralty if he would promise on behalf of the Admiralty an independent inquiry into the position of the vessel, such as would satisfy the conscience of the House and the country. They were in the presence of a new problem in the control of the Admiralty; the House of Commons had voted freely and readily vast sums of money for the construction of a vessel of a particular type, for a particular purpose. That vessel had been a complete failure, but never before had the House considered the question of what they were to do when they found that the purposes for which they had voted money had not been fulfilled; that a work which they had authorised had not been done, or, if it had, had been done in such a manner as to show no result. There had been a good deal of talk about the application of business principles to these matters, and he suggested that, in addition to the Committee on Public Accounts, there ought to be another Committee to sit upon the Estimates from an administrative point of view. The House authorised beforehand certain money to be spent in a certain way. If it was not done, what remedy had they? Absolutely none. The Public Accounts Committee was the greatest and most important Committee which sat, but its jurisdiction was limited to matters of account, and if it trespassed beyond matters of account, the Department whose accounts it was dealing with had the answer that this

  481
  was a matter of administration, and with administration the Public Accounts Committee had nothing whatever to do. Notwithstanding that, the Public Accounts Committee had pronounced an opinion upon this maladministration, and they desired to call attention to the fact of the expenditure on the new royal yacht, which, up to the end of the financial year, had exceeded the amount of the Estimate by £37,000. The Committee then say—
  "As this excess is said to be mainly due to inexperience in building ships of this kind, the Committee are of opinion that work of this character should not in future be undertaken in His Majesty's dockyards."
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (continuing) said: The passage I have read states that this excess "is said" to be due to inexperience. Said to whom? Said by whom? The evidence laid before the Public Accounts Committee has not yet been printed, but I am told by members of the Committee that this statement was made by way of defence by the officials responsible. That certainly was the main contention when this matter was first considered, and I think that I am justified in demanding not only such explanation as can be given now, but also, which is still more important, that in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case and the discredit which this work casts upon the dockyards, we should have a special inquiry into this matter. For obvious reasons it cannot be a departmental inquiry. The Department itself is involved, and no Departmental Committee or Committee appointed by the Department can possibly satisfy the conscience of the House or of the country. If there is at all a real financial conscience in the country, I believe it will approve the demand I am making for an inquiry into this grave administrative scandal, for there must have been not only profligate expenditure but incompetent administration. In the face of these facts, and in the absence of any means whatever for placing the responsibility or of tracing the whole history of this disastrous blunder, I ask the hon.
  482
  Gentleman to promise that the matter shall be made the subject of a special inquiry—preferably by a Select Committee of this House. We who vote the money are bound to tell our constituents whether it has been properly expended, and for the purposes of such an inquiry there are upon both sides of the House Members who are familiar with engineering and shipbuilding, and in whom we should have every confidence. In order to enforce my recommendation I beg formally to move the reduction of this Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,305,500, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid the occasion of the demand so powerfully made by the hon. Member for Dundee for a special inquiry was that the royal yacht was designed in the Admiralty, and that its cost had exceeded the first estimate by about 100 per cent. The facts were comparatively simple. The yacht was designed mainly for the use of the Head of the State. The hon. Member opposite had said that, like the "Hohenzollern," the yacht should have been so constructed as to be available for the purposes of both warfare and pleasure. But Mr. Goschen, when introducing the Estimate for the yacht, stated that it was the intention of the designer that the vessel should be capable of as much of the offensive and defensive power of a cruiser and a scout as was compatible with the pleasure and official purposes for which it was designed, but that its primary purpose was that of a means of conveyance for the Sovereign. The only criticism of detail brought forward by the hon. Member on the question of its defensive and offensive powers was with regard to the use of non-inflammable wood. But the very object with which this wood was fitted was that of defence—to prevent the vessel taking fire in time of action. It was complained that a mistake had been made in the calculation as to the stability of the yacht. The vessel fulfilled all the intentions of the designer except in this one point. Was this the only

  483
  instance in which a mistake had been made in calculations in regard to ships? There was not a shipbuilding yard throughout the country in which from time to time mistakes had not been made. In this instance the mistake was discovered in a theatrical manner, thereby attracting a large amount of public attention. The Admiralty had designed a very large number of vessels during the last twenty years, and the percentage of errors of calculation had been exceedingly small. A year or eighteen months ago a Departmental Committee was set up to inquire upon whom the responsibility rested for this particular mistake. No statement had ever been made to the House as to the Report of that Committee, and before he could consent to the proposal for a Select Committee he would respectfully invite the Secretary to the Admiralty to take the Committee into his confidence and state what was the result of that Departmental inquiry. If the result had been, as he anticipated, to exonerate the Director of Naval Construction, and to place the responsibility upon some other official, he felt sure that even the hon. Member for Gateshead would be pleased to find that the fault did not lie with an officer who had designed some 160 or 200 ships of various classes for His Majesty's Government, and who had had so large a responsibility and so overpowering an amount of work. Another point of considerable importance was as to the Admiralty not having acted upon the recommendations of its own Committee as regarded boilers.
  MR. KEARLEYasked, on a point of order, whether the discussion ought not to be confined to the question of the royal yacht.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dundee has moved this reduction with a view to raising the question of H.M.S. "Victoria and Albert," and that alone. After that has been disposed of it will still be open to the hon. Member to discuss other questions.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he would defer the remainder of his remarks.
  *MR. WILLIAM ALLANwas surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for the Shipley Division. The hon. Member was a clever engineer and shipbuilder, and the views he had expressed were not at all in keeping with his business ability and shrewdness. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would get to the bottom of this matter of the royal yacht. What a pitiable story it was; what a satire upon our modern engineering and shipbuilding ability. First of all, £200,000 was voted for the vessel. That was enough to build a most palatial yacht at Denny's, Fairfield, or any other yard. Every year since the catastrophe to the royal yacht she had been running up hundreds of thousands of pounds, until now there was an amount of £520,000 put against her, and, in his opinion, there would be more yet. That amount would be far exceeded, and it was the duty of the Committee to demand from the Department an explanation of where the money had gone to and who had been to blame for this tremendous blunder. This was not a personal matter with him; it was a national matter. If there was a Government official in any Department who spent the nation's money helter-skelter in this way, who produced an article which was not genuine or not built on scientific lines, no matter whether it was a gun or a steamer, it was the duty of the Committee to inquire into the matter. The yacht had been neither more nor less than a simple experiment, and he exonerated no man, whoever he might be, for making so flagrant an experiment and so flagrant a blunder. It would not do to tell the Committee that some under-strapper was to blame. If his firm made an engine that broke down, he, as the head of the concern, and not his foreman or anyone else, was to blame and had to take the responsibility. The matter must be probed to the bottom, so that the Committee and the country might know who was to blame for the design of the yacht and for all this additional expenditure. It was said that the chief constructor had designed 150 or 200 ships. That might be, but he was afraid that they also, like the royal yacht, were designed far too fine. These modern, fashionable, fine-line cruisers could not

  485
  carry the guns; they were all under-gunned, and simply because they were built on too fine lines.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked if the hon. Member would state which of the cruisers were under-gunned, and to what extent.
  *MR. WILLIAM ALLANwas quite prepared to take up the challenge. The much-lauded "Powerful" had a displacement of 14,200 tons, and the total weight of metal or shot discharged in one round from her guns was 1,960 lbs. whereas a Japanese vessel, the "Asama," built by Armstrong's—
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: How many years after the "Powerful" was designed?
  *MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Much about the same time.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: No.
  *MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg pardon, That boat could steam 21 knots day in and day out, and she was fitted with ordinary boilers. The total weight of metal discharged by this cruiser was 2,400 lbs., while the much-lauded "Powerful" could only discharge 1,960 lbs. of metal in one round.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better to return to the question before the Committee.
  *MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid the same weakness or fault which had existed in the royal yacht—namely, that she was too fine a ship to carry any top weight—was exactly the same with the new cruisers built lately, and that was why they were under-gunned and could not bear top weight. Parliament ought to know who was to blame for this scandalous waste of public money. He appealed to the House to support the reduction of the Vote.
  THE EARL OF DALKEITHsaid there was a good deal in what the hon. Member had said in regard to the line of the royal yacht being too fine. There was no doubt that the failure of the royal yacht had caused a good deal of anxiety in the country. For this
  486
  reason he thought the question ought to be thoroughly gone into, although he did not think a Committee of the House of Commons was the best committee of inquiry to go into the matter. As regarded the royal yacht, he agreed with what had been said by the Member for the Shipley Division, that if one was to be made it was better that it should be constructed primarily to be a royal yacht worthy of the Sovereign of this country. He thought that all practical men would agree that it was impossible to make a satisfactory combination of a thoroughly good yacht and a warship of any kind. If the Admiralty had to undertake—as was not at all unlikely—the building of a new royal yacht, he hoped they would confine themselves to building a yacht, and not something intended to be half a yacht and half a cruiser. He agreed that it was a great mistake that this yacht should have been built in a royal dockyard at all, and it should not have been designed by an Admiralty official. It would have been far better if the yacht had been designed and constructed by one of the many private firms which were familiar with that class of work, and who had been able to produce better work in that respect than any other country in the world. He hoped the Admiralty would acknowledge that the royal yacht was a failure, and that they would ask the House to provide a yacht suitable for the Sovereign, and that this yacht, which had not the coaling capacity for a long voyage at a high rate of speed, and drew too much water for the ordinary purposes of a yacht, might be used for a hospital ship in the Mediterranean or for some other purpose for which a high rate of speed was not required. He hoped the Admiralty would use it for something of that kind, and ask the House to vote money for a new yacht such as would be suitable for the Sovereign of this country, instead of one which was at present a laughing-stock.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think there is, after all, a great deal about this question upon which there can be no difference of opinion at all. There has been a great miscalculation, great over-expenditure; in fact, a great deal to be regretted. But the question is, what is the practical thing to be done now.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Break her up.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not my point. Now what is the extent of this miscalculation? It has been stated to be something like 100 per cent. upon the original Estimate. I must correct that statement. To a certain extent, to a considerable extent, the additional expense we are now asking for is due to another cause. There has been a contributory cause, which, I think, is not likely to be discussed, and of the effect of which we are not likely to complain. The fact that this yacht was constructed and designed for the use of her late Majesty led to a great amount of internal fitting and decoration which were not suitable for the use of his present Majesty. There is a considerable alteration going on now as a direct result in consequence. I do not disguise from myself or from the Committee that a very large part of this extra cost is due to miscalculations in the original designs of the yacht. As to who is responsible there can be only one reply. The Admiralty and the Chief Constructor to the Admiralty are responsible for the designs of all the King's ships, and the responsibility must lie with the very competent designer who has done so much to strengthen the Navy. I believe he is prepared to take the responsibility of the miscalculation, which must be a very grievous sorrow and burden to him. I do not think that very much will be gained by enlarging upon it. When I am told, however, that the yacht in its present condition is only fit to be broken up, I must enter my demur. That is not the case. The yacht is now in an absolutely perfect state. There is no doubt that the yacht is absolutely stable, and can be trusted to go to sea under any circumstances. There is no doubt, also, that the suggestion which has been made that the yacht can only be relegated to purposes where no speed is required is an entire misstatement. The yacht can go over nineteen knots.
  THE EARL OF DALKEITH: For how long?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: She has run at that speed as far as her coal would carry her.
  THE EARL OF DALKEITH: How far?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is a question which I am not prepared to answer. Although we have had to spend a great deal of money upon this vessel, she is now a seaworthy boat, and in a very short time she will be a very luxurious and well-fitted boat, and, I believe, well suited for the purpose for which she was designed. When my hon. friend says that it was a mistake in judgment to relegate the construction, of a vessel of this kind to the royal, dockyards, I cannot honestly say that I differ very much from him. I believe that it would have been better—it is easy to be wise after the event—if she had been specialised at the commencement and entrusted to some great shipbuilding firm which has made a European or world-wide reputation in the construction of luxurious vessels. As to the desirability of making this vessel a warship first and a yacht afterwards,. I do not agree with the views which have been expressed. That matter was gone into when the first idea of the yacht was proposed. I quite agree that money has been spent needlessly in doing work that ought not to have deen done, and in repairing errors which ought not to have been committed. It is now proposed to ask for a Committee of Inquiry into the matter. It is not desirable to relieve the Admiralty of their responsibility; and, therefore, I cannot agree; with the appointment of any Committee. We do not propose to ask a Committee of this House to inquire into the matter. If the functions of the Public Accounts Committee are so large as the hon. Member for Dundee has suggested, it is not advisable to enlarge them by charging that Committee with the duty of inquiring into this matter, the responsibility for which lies with the Admiralty. I am not prepared to assent to the appointment of a Committee which will deprive the Admiralty of its responsibility in such matters, and until we have received some definite instruction from this House—
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I suggested an independent inquiry. I admitted that the House was rather against that kind of thing. What I

  489
  wanted was the appointment of an independent Committee.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I still maintain that it is not desirable to relieve the Admiralty of their responsibilty. Therefore, I cannot agree to the appointment of any independent body to usurp the functions of the Admiralty in this matter, and I hope the Committee will not consent to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dundee. Nothing would be gained by it. This expenditure will not be curtailed, and it will not be saved. I have admitted, as I am bound to admit, that these misfortunes have occurred, and we all regret them, but they are irreparable, and I can see no good purpose that will be served by accepting the Amendment. We must be content to accept the facts as they are.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he was glad to find from the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty that there were many points with regard to the royal yacht upon which they were all agreed. Nevertheless, he thought that neither the hon. Member who had replied for the Admiralty nor the noble Lord who preceded him had quite realised the importance of this subject. This question of the royal yacht had created very great interest throughout the country, and more particularly in the shipbuilding districts. He assured the hon. Member who represented the Government upon this question that there was a much greater anxiety in regard to the royal yacht than he seemed to realise. That anxiety was not caused by the fact that the royal yacht was not a suitable ship, but because it had been designed under the superintendence of a gentleman who had complete control of the designing of all our warships. What the country felt was that if a mistake like this or a miscalculation had been made with regard to the royal yacht, it was quite possible that a similar mistake or miscalculation might be made with regard to some of our warships. He did not pretend to be such an expert upon shipbuilding as the hon. Member for Shipley, but he owned thirty steamers, and he had had the honour of giving a good many orders for them himself.
  490
  Therefore he did know something about the subject. Every ship which had been built for him had been engined in the river, and in every instance when the engines had been put in his steamers had been found to be perfectly stable. He hoped the hon. Member would not consider that they were dealing with this as a party question. His anxiety for the welfare of the Navy was as great as that of anybody else. What he wanted to call the attention of the Government to was this—that there was great anxiety in the country on this subject, and that it would be very much better if they consented to an independent and impartial inquiry to satisfy the public feeling. He did not wish to score a point over His Majesty's Government or the Chief Constructor to the Navy, but he wanted to satisfy public feeling in the matter and remove their doubts as to whether the warships would fulfil the purposes for which they were built. Their experience in regard to this royal yacht was unique in the shipbuilding history of this country, and he questioned whether there was ever a case anything like it before. Notwithstanding the assurances of the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the seaworthiness of this ship, if what he had heard was true, he was not satisfied, that she would prove seaworthy in case of a storm at sea. The masts of the yacht had been lowered, her funnels had been cut down, the houses on the deck had been taken away, and a large amount of pig-iron had been put in to keep her steady; and, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's assurances as to her seaworthiness, as a loyal subject of the King he hoped His Majesty would not go to, sea in her. They had much better break up the yacht and spend another £209,000 to build a new ship. He thought that course would be far more satisfactory to the country and also to His Majesty. He hoped that the Government would take this matter into their serious consideration. He had made many mistakes in his time, like other people. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."]; He was quite frank about his mistakes, and hon. Members opposite evidently were not, but whenever he had made a mistake he had always done his utmost to rectify it. He would seriously recommend the Government to cons

  491
  whether it would not be more satisfactory to dispose of this yacht and to build a new one. He was anxious to know who was responsible for the miscalculations that had been made. He quite agreed that if His Majesty had given a commission to any shipbuilder on the Clyde or the Wear they would have built a yacht which would have been satisfactory, most certainly for £250,000; and he was certain that if such a ship, when launched, would not stand upright the Government would have refused to take her over. When a blunder was made in the Army a court of inquiry was held, as in Sir Henry Colvile's case, and the officer was condemned; and, whether the miscalculations that had been made were due to negligence or incompetence, the person who made them was equally culpable and should be called to account. He confessed that he looked upon this matter as much more serious than some hon. Members were inclined to regard it. The country were watching very closely the action of the Government, and they would not be satisfied with a mere departmental inquiry.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that most of the hon. Members who had addressed the House were experts upon shipbuilding. He had had the advantage of paying frequent visits to the yacht under discussion, and had taken pains to inform himself as to the actual position of matters in connection with the subject under discussion. He did not profess to be an expert on yacht building, but, speaking as a layman, it seemed to him that this yacht was a most remarkable vessel, unlike any other vessel, and he understood that the reason was that she was designed for a royal yacht. It seemed to him that the designer of the yacht thought he was producing one best fitted for the purpose, and that he was perfectly justified in making the experiment he did. If the plan he hit upon had not been wholly satisfactory he was perfectly justified by the circumstances under which he was working. He was informed that the use of non-inflammable wood had been an undoubted failure, but he was also told that the fault, on being discovered, had been to a great extent remedied. It might be said that
  492
  the country was very indignant because of the money that had been spent on the yacht, but when a vessel like this was being built they could not be certain beforehand that the experiment would be a success. The criticism and continual abuse levelled against the designer, the Admiralty, and the Government were a little intemperate, and he was prepared in the circumstances to support the Government.
  *SIR EDWARD REEDsaid the motion of his hon. friend rested, as he understood, upon two grounds—firstly, that a great mistake had been made in the Admiralty Office, and, secondly, that a very large expenditure had been incurred in excess of the Estimates and without the authority of this House. Even the Secretary to the Admiralty admitted these propositions—firstly, that a grave error had been made in the design of the yacht, and, secondly, that the expenditure was much more than double what was originally estimated had to be laid out upon her in the dockyard. These two points seemed to be entirely different. As to the design, he was obliged to separate himself from those who thought it was necessarily an error to design a royal yacht and build her in His Majesty's dockyards. He had not the smallest doubt that the constructive department of the Admiralty was perfectly competent to design any class of vessel, and he saw no error in committing the design to them originally, nor any error in committing the building of her to the royal dockyards. Indeed, there were some advantages. Those who knew something about these matters had often great grounds for complaint against the Admiralty that, after having entered into contracts for the building of His Majesty's ships, a great number of alterations were made and great expense incurred, and great niggardliness shown as regards the expense so incurred. Here was the case of a vessel that was peculiarly liable to have to undergo many at least minor alterations and modifications, for the reason that the vessel was to fulfil the requirements of her late gracious Majesty, and it was not to be expected that either her late Majesty or his present Majesty could settle everything designed for their

  493
  dignified use or entirely grasp drawings and specifications. Even builders sometimes had undertaken to build vessels from designs and specifications which were to them incomprehensible. He thought that was a fair and natural reason why this vessel should be built under conditions in which there would be more elasticity of construction and arrangement than ordinarily, and that was the ground, and the only ground, on which he rested his approval of the vessel being built in a Royal dockyard. At the same time, looking to the fact that the royal dockyards had been for some years past full to overflowing with work on battleships and cruisers, it might have been wiser to have called upon the great private firms of the country, who were well competent and practised in the designing of such ships, to deal with the matter. But he had no blame to throw upon the Admiralty, for the reason he had stated. As to the question of the error in the design, he did not wish to lay any stress upon it, and, indeed, he should have hardly mentioned it, but the Secretary to the Admiralty seemed to recognise no responsibility in the Admiralty or in this House for a matter of the kind.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said the exact contrary. I said the Admiralty was wholly responsible.
  *SIR EDWARD REEDsaid the hon. Gentleman desired to preserve the responsibility of the Admiralty by denying all responsibility to the House. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the responsibility of the Admiralty, and advised the House not to take any part of that responsibility off the Admiralty by instituting an independent inquiry. He was very sorry indeed that a man of such great ability and experience as his friend Sir William White should have met with this calamity. No designer, no matter how able, was free from an error of this kind creeping into his design; and if any reproach could be levelled against Sir William White at all, it was for having undertaken a work which he might very well have passed on to a private firm. An accident of this sort would occur sometimes in calculation. He had him-self known an accident occur in this way. Some negligent draughtsman calculating
  494
  the detailed weights of some parts of the structure or machinery had forgotten to multiply something on one side by two. It was very difficult in a case like that for the chief designer and the responsible head to detect it if it did not cover a very large amount of ground. In this particular case what happened, he believed, was this. The vessel was to be provided with very ample deck accommodation, with very ample deckhouses, with elevated bridges, and with many things tending to greatly raise the centre of gravity. These weights were estimated before the design was settled but, as it happened, unfortunately they were under-estimated. He had no specific authority for stating, but he believed it was true, that Sir William White himself had no conception of any oversight having been committed in the vessel until she actually capsized in the dockyard. That was the first intimation he had of any defect, and an overwhelming blow it must have been. He came now to the second point, and he must say that he went entirely with his hon. friend who moved the Amendment. This House, feeling its responsibility to the country in connection with the expenditure of public money, assented to an outlay of £237,000 for a royal yacht, but since the accident happened the Admiralty had gone ahead lavishing expenditure on this vessel without the smallest respect for the responsibility of the House. The appalling figure now reached was £512,000 for the vessel. His hon. friend did not come with a savage, vindictive motion, calculated to greatly stigmatise and injure the Government. No, he came with an Amendment so moderate and so small that it was difficult to understand how any responsible Member of the House could escape voting for it. He did not suppose that the Government would accept the Amendment, but why they should oppose it he did not know. The Secretary to the Admiralty had given no explanation of the course of proceedings on this vessel. Here he would make an admission of sympathy with the Government. They all knew since the decease of the late Sovereign that this vessel was bound to undergo large changes in accommodation to adapt it to the uses

  495
  of His Majesty the King, and if the Secretary to the Admiralty had come to the Committee with a separate Estimate for that, in view of the new circumstances and conditions, he believed they would have passed the Vote without the slightest demur. We had this expenditure, which already amounted to £512,000, still going on, and if the deplorable vaticinations of the hon. Member for Gateshead should prove correct, the amount would be much larger. He would support the Amendment, with the conviction that he was performing a reasonable public duty.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Cardiff said in his speech. There has been no attempt on the part of the Government to repudiate their responsibility—of course the Government must be responsible for what takes place in the Admiralty—or to minimise the fact that there has been a great error in the construction of this vessel. It is admitted absolutely. One hon. Gentleman has said that there ought to be an inquiry. Well, the facts are not in doubt. The object of an inquiry is to see which of two sides in a matter on which there is a dispute is in the right. There is really no dispute in this case. The error is admitted in the frankest and fullest way by my hon. friend who represents the Admiralty in this House. Why there should be an inquiry, and what kind of an inquiry it should be, I really know not, for we have never attempted in the smallest degree to represent that there has not been an error, or to deny the fact that the error has cost the country a great deal more money in connection with the construction of the royal yacht than was at one time anticipated. So much for the inquiry. On that matter I am not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I am entirely in agreement with what has fallen from him with regard to Sir William White, the distinguished gentleman who has been responsible for the designs of this yacht, as for so many of the finest ships of war afloat in the world. I did not hear the statement myself, but I understand that one hon. Gentleman opposite sug
  496
  gested the propriety of turning Sir W. White out of the public service. [Opposition cries of "No, no," and Ministerial cries of "Joicey."] As the hon. Gentleman is not present I do not wish to press the matter, but I am informed that be said that if he had been served in that way he would have turned the gentleman who had so served him out of his service.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the statement was not made in reference to Sir W. White.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand it was made with regard to the technical, adviser responsible for the mistake. That technical adviser is Sir W. White, and under these circumstances I am right in saying it has been suggested that he should be turned out of the public service. Let me tell the House why we do not pretend, any more than Sir W. White himself would pretend, to defend what has occurred with regard to the royal yacht. Sir W. White is a man who has done more to revolutionise naval construction in this country and other countries than any man now living. He entered the public service of this country at a pecuniary loss to himself, and since he entered that service he has done admirable public work, of which this House and the country ought to be, and I believe are, gratefully aware. I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite will associate himself with me in saying that he has done work which has earned the admiration of the world and the gratitude of his countrymen. Under these circumstances I think we ought not to weigh upon a single mistake made in a brilliant career. I do not know who of us is sufficiently proud of himself to think that he has not made a great mistake in his career. Few of us have had such a career as Sir W. White has had as regards the public benefit he has given to his country. It is a cruel injustice to a great public servant that any man should dwell upon this single error and regard it as casting a shadow over a life such as Sir W. White has lived.
  SIR JAMES JOICEY (who had returned to the House): I understand

  497
  that the right hon. Gentleman has been alluding to me. I should like to make it clear what I did say. I said that if any large employer had had in his service any person who had committed a great blunder entailing such serious consequences, he would not have kept him in his employment twenty-four hours. I was not alluding to any particular person. We are asking for a Committee of Inquiry. I certainly did not say it was Sir W. White.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I frankly admit that I think better of large employers than to believe that such is the case. I do not believe that a large employer who had under him a technical adviser who for ten, fifteen, or twenty years had done him brilliant service, and had given his firm its position among the firms of the world, would in consequence of a single blunder act in that way. The hon. Member for Cardiff explained what I am sure the House is ready to accept from him, and not from him alone, but from all those who have had official connection with Sir W. White, the statement of the debt of gratitude this country owes him, and the further statement that we do not think a great record of public service ought to be seriously discounted on account of a single error. Having said that, I may venture to appeal to the Committee upon a point connected with the conduct of the debate on this Vote. The royal yacht is undoubtedly an important question. I do not wish to minimise it, but I would respectfully suggest that we should come to a decision on this Amendment rapidly, because there are larger issues still to be discussed which do deserve and require the attention of the Committee.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONhoped the Committee would permit him to say a few words in answer to the First Lord of the Treasury. He must protest against the right hon. Gentleman having sought to turn this question of the control of expenditure into one of the personal responsibility of Sir W. White. The right hon. Gentleman had not been present during nine-tenths of the debate, and he (Mr. Robertson) had a better right than the right hon. Gentleman to speak in praise of Sir William White,
  498
  because he had been more distinctly and personally associated with Sir W. White than the First Lord of the Treasury could possibly have been. He adopted every word which the right hon. Gentleman had said in praise of Sir W. White; but he did not adopt the fixing of responsibility on Sir W. White, and he refused to accept the theory that Sir W. White was responsible for this miscalculation. Sir W. White's responsibility was no more than that of the Admiralty. He would most willingly have withdrawn his Amendment had there been any approximation by the representative of the Admiralty to an independent inquiry, but that not having been done, he must press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. GODDARDsaid that the hon. Member for Dundee in introducing his Amendment had laid special stress on what he described as a rather remarkable sentence in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee with reference to the royal yacht. He was not sure if it had not even been hinted in the debate that that Committee had gone out of its province in making the suggestion to the Admiralty as conveyed in that sentence. As a member of that Committee he would like to say that they would not have put that sentence into their Report, which they had done unanimously, had it not been for the evidence submitted to them that the error in regard to the cost of the royal yacht was due to the inexperience of the Admiralty in the construction of vessels of that description. The Public Accounts Committee were aware that this was not the first instance in which the House of Commons had been induced to embark on expenditure on the understanding that a certain sum of money would be required for a certain purpose, while subsequent years had shown that the amount required was far in excess of that first asked for. That practice had become a very serious thing indeed. He would briefly recapitulate the facts. When the subject of the royal yacht was first brought before the House it was stated that £237,000 would be required, as a rough estimate, for the yacht. Then, when details were prepared, including the sums for labour, material, etc., that sum, based on definite calcula

  499
  tions, was raised to £353,000. It had been suggested that the alterations to the royal yacht were necessary because of the lamented death of the late Sovereign, and the accession of the King; but he would point out that last year's Estimates had shown a substantial increase on the previous year's Estimates in regard to this yacht, and that could not possibly have been due to the death of Queen Victoria. The Estimate had increased from £353,000 to £450,000. That was a very serious increase indeed. Now, this year they were asked for £512,000 for a yacht which was originally estimated would cost £237,000. That was a serious point, and a high principle was involved in it. He did not imply for one moment that the whole blame was due to Sir W. White; indeed that question was never raised in the Public Accounts Committee. It had simply been stated that the mistake was due to inexperience in the building of ships of that kind by the Admiralty. But surely there was very good cause why the question should be raised in all seriousness in the House, and an inquiry be made.
  MR. CREANsaid that year after year the increase on the Estimates had been piled up, and as a rule the only attack against these ever-recurring increases had been made from the Irish benches. He was not at all surprised that the Leader of the House was anxious to get away from the tight corner in which he found himself that night. This was only an instance of the condition into which the Government had got the finances of the country; but they seemed prepared to defend any extravagant expenditure so long as they had a majority behind them to swallow it. Hon. Members on these benches, however, were not in the habit of taking for granted that everything the Government said or did was right. If anybody was to blame for reflecting upon Sir W. White in this particular instance, he thought it was those hon. Gentlemen who were inclined to closure the debate. He might say that the reflection upon Sir W. White would be far more severe in the country than anything that had been said in the House. What he wanted was to saddle the blame for this gross blunder on the right shoulders. How expert the construc
  500
  tors of the Admiralty must be, when they could scarcely read the drawings which were placed before them! He had himself seen drawings which the gentlemen who made them could not themselves interpret. Time after time alterations in the designs were made, and the result was that private firms dreaded to take work from the Admiralty. He knew of a case of a small boat in which, on account of these mistakes, the contractors were £4,000 out of pocket. He did not believe the Government would realise the position in which they stood with regard to the Navy until the Fleet had been subjected to a strain similar to that which the Army had been and was still undergoing. This yacht was an object-lesson. If in connection with a vessel of such supreme importance—for it was for the conveyance of their Sovereign—these things happened, it was not an extravagant supposition to assume that many of the other vessels constructed under the same authorities would, if properly tested, be found to be equally defective.
  MR. KEARLEYasked whether it was a fact that, before this accident occurred, an Admiralty official went down to Pembroke Dockyard to check the final draught and trim of the ship, and that after his examination he reported to the Admiralty that everything was satisfactory. A rumour to that effect had been going about for some time, and if it was well-founded it placed a very direct responsibility upon the shoulders, of the Admiralty. He regretted that the name of Sir W. White had been imported into the discussion, because they all knew what a very able man he was, and what a serious blow it had been to him that this misfortune had occurred. If an inquiry was held he had no doubt that it would be shown, that Sir W. White was not the official in fault, although in his official capacity he took the responsibility upon himself. It was an open secret that the really responsible person was a man no longer in the employ of the Admiralty.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYasked whether it was a fact that the official who had been found to be responsible for this miscalculation was no longer in the

  501
  employment of the Admiralty. He also repeated the inquiry he had made earlier in the evening, but which had not been answered, as to whether the royal yacht had a large quantity of pig-iron in her as ballast, and whether it was true that she was over two feet deeper than her designer intended her to be.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Devonport, that the survey was made in the ordinary course by the Admiralty officials at the launching of the vessel, before any of the weights were added. It appeared that the top-weights of a vessel were those which very largely affected its stability. It was quite possible for a survey to be made of a vessel externally without any error being detected if the error was in the distribution and calculation of the weights during construction. The fact was, however, that the survey was made before the weights were put on the vessel.
  MR. KEARLEYasked whether the hon. Member would give the date on which this official visit was made. If he could not give the date at once, would he give it if a question was placed on the Paper? Every expert knew that the checking operation was a very serious one, but yet it was not then discovered whether the vessel was seaworthy or not. He had been told that many of the fittings used in the yacht had been made to the dockyard scheduled pattern. For instance, the sidelights weighed 3½ cwts. each, precisely the same weight as would have been used for a battleship, and that procedure was adopted all the way through. If he put down a question, would the hon. Gentleman give the date on which the vessel was officially inspected?
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had made an attack on him for one statement in his speech. His hon. friend had stated that the official responsible in the matter was not now in the employment of the Admiralty. He again asked whether that was the case or not; also whether there was a large amount of
  502
  pig-iron on board the vessel as ballast, and whether she was not two feet deeper than she was intended by her designer.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not give the date asked for by the hon. Member for Devonport, but if a question were put down he would certainly reply to it. The hon. Member asked whether any person had been discharged on account of the error.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid what he asked was whether the official responsible was now in the employment of the Admiralty.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he did not assert that the official had been discharged.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he believed the drafting staff remained the same, with the exception of one member, who left on his own accord to take other employment. The hon. Member for Devonport had rebuked him for bringing in the name of Sir William White, but he had no option in the matter; he brought his name in as Chief Constructor of the Navy, in which capacity he was responsible. The hon. Member also asked whether the vessel exceeded her draft. She did exceed her draft when first launched, but had since been readjusted, and the extremely heavy fittings had been removed in order to bring her back to her sea-going trim.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he had asked the hon. Member whether it was true that the vessel had a large quantity of pig-iron on board as ballast, and if she were not now 2 ft. deeper than her designer intended her to be.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the pig-iron had been placed on board the vessel to bring her down to her load-line when she was brought from Pembroke to Portsmouth. The whole of the weights had been readjusted, and she was now ballasted in the ordinary way. She had now the designed draft.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 182. (Division List No 255.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Ambrose, Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarnonshire)

  Austin, Sir John

  Cullinan, J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Delany, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Black, Alexander William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leamy, Edmund

  Blake, Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Boland, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Boyle, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brigg, John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lundon, W.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Elibank, Master of

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Field, William

  M'Crae, George

  Burns, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Caldwell, James

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Govern, T.

  Campbell John (Armagh, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Minch, Matthew

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hammond, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Moss, Samuel

  Murnaghan, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  O'Shee, James John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

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

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, G'wer

  Norman, Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

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

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Reddy, M.

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East),

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

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  O'Dowd, John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  O'Malley, William

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  O'Mara, James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, George H.

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christchurch

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maxwell, W J H. (Dumfriesshire

  Bigwood, James

  Garfit, William

  Mitchell, William

  Bill, Charles

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Butcher, John George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

  Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Chapman, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Helder, Augustus

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Purvis, Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rasch, Maj. Frederick Carne

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Henry

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Knowles, Lees

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Round, James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Russell, T. W.

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sassoon, Sir Edw. Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wylie, Alexander

  Spear, John Ward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Walker, Col. Wm. Hall

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

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

  Stroyan, John

  Whitmore, Chas. (Algernon)

  Strutt, Hn. Chas. Hedley

  Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell (Birm.

  Resolution agreed to.

  AYES.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Mara, James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Shee, James John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Bell, Richard

  Holland, William Henry

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Black, Alexander William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pirie, Dnncan V.

  Boland, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Minch, Matthew

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Delany, William

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Moss, Samuel

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Murnaghan, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duffy, William J.

  Norman, Henry

  White, Lake (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry, Mid

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Field, William

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Causton.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finch, George H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Flower, Ernest

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Garfit, William

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bigwood, James

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bill, Charles

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sbury

  Bond, Edward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gretton, John

  Brassey, Albert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Denny, Colonel

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Bull, William James

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morgan, David J. (Walthams' w

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hermon, Hodge, Robert T.

  Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hogg, Lindsay-

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stroyan, John

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Keswick, William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Knowles, Lees

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Penn, John

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walker, Col. Wm. Hall

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell (Birm

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pym, C. Guy

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Milton, Viscount

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again "—(Sir Charles Dilke), put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he did not know whether all the Members of the Committee now present were aware of what had occurred during the evening. He did not want to blame anyone in particular, and probably if he went into that question the blame would have to be distributed. For five or six years it had been the custom to discuss the shipbuilding programme of the Government late in the session, and the representative of the Admiralty took an opportunity in June or July of making a statement on the subject. That night the Vote for the personnel of the Navy was taken first, which was unusual in recent years, and he was quite unaware that it was the intention of the Government to bring forward the personnel Vote before the materiel Vote. When it was found that that was the intention of the Government, it would be admitted
  506
  that hon. Members interested in the personnel Vote did everything in their power to shorten the discussion, with the result that in a short time a sum of two and a half millions was voted. Then an Amendment, no doubt of an import ant character, was moved, and that occupied the remainder of the evening. He had certainly expected that the Secretary to the Admiralty would make a general statement, as was the practice of Mr. Goschen when he was First Lord of the Admiralty; but he did not, and the Committee passed at once to the Amendment. The Committee had never been asked to consent to a Shipbuilding Vote without full information as to the character of the ships being supplied, or else reasons why that information could not be given. That had been the invariable custom, and therefore it seemed to him impossible that the Government should get the whole Vote that night. It was the duty of the Govern

  507
  ment to give the Committee another opportunity of discussing the materiel Vote, as they had not had the opportunity which had always been given on previous occasions.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he must really decline to take the blame for what had occurred. No one regretted more than he did that the Committee had been unable to discuss the Shipbuilding Vote in detail. He had consulted with the late Secretary to the Admiralty opposite, and fell in with the arrangement he suggested. The discussion on the first Vote was completed in half an hour, and certainly it was not his fault that the remaining questions, of very great interest, had not been proceeded with. Instead of that, the whole of the evening had been spent in discussing a matter of secondary importance, for which he was not prepared to take the blame on himself.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not put it down to the fault of the hon. Gentleman, except that he might have made a statement at the commencement of the discussion such as was made last year.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the effective point was, whether another day would be given for the discussion. He would remind the Leader of the House that the debate did not commence, until a quarter to eight o'clock, and that therefore they were not asking anything unreasonable when they asked for another day in which to discuss these great naval Estimates. The country would be very much disappointed if the Vote were now closed, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not attempt any such course. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly inform the Committee when the next opportunity would be given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All that the Leader of the House can do is to do his
  508
  best to distribute the time given to Supply so as to suit the convenience of Members, and the public service. If unofficial Members expend on two consecutive days several hours in discussing motions for the adjournment, and if when Supply is brought on Members will insist in discussing matters which, however important, are still of secondary importance, the blame does not rest with me. I do my best, sometimes by moving the closure, sometimes by other means, to try and direct discussion into the proper channels, but my power in this respect is limited, and it must rest with the House itself to determine in the main how the allotted days should be disposed of.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to report progress.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
  Mr. CAUTLEY and Mr. NOLAN, the Tellers in the Aye Division Lobby in the division on the question on the Amendment to the Second Reading of the Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2) Bill, came to the Table, and stated that they had erroneously reported the number of the Ayes as 307, instead of 296, which was the proper number.
  Mr. SPEAKER directed the Clerk to correct the said error by stating the number of the Ayes in that division as 296, instead of 307.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve of the clock until Monday next.

The Lord Bowes (E. Strathmore and Kinghorne) took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Glasgow and South-Western Railway.

Shannon Water and Electric Power.

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation.

Torrington and Okehampton Railway.

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Dorking Gas.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
  DORKING GAS BILL.
  Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
  BRISTOL CORPORATION (DOCKS AND RAILWAYS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  THAMES DEEP WATER DOCK BILL.
  Reported without amendment.

  WORCESTER TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  FRESHWATER, YARMOUTH, AND NEWPORT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) GAS BILL [H.L.].
  LEATHERHEAD GAS BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.

  NEATH HARBOUR BILL.
  Reported without amendment.

  NEWRY PORT AND HARBOUR TRUST BILL.
  MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.

  BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.

  BURTON-UPON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL.
  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  DUBLIN (EQUALISATION OF RATES) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  IRISH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed for Thursday next.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (AMENDMENT OF ACTS) BILL.
  PEMBROKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (COUNTY OF DUBLIN) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  ARDROSSAN GAS AND WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.

  CROMER WATER BILL.
  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  FINCHLEY AND HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons giving leave to James Bigwood, Esquire (a member), to attend the Select Committee (pursuant to Message of yesterday).

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.].
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.].
  (MANCHESTER AND BARNES ORDERS OPPOSED.)

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  (LEAMINGTON AND BIRKDALE ORDERS OPPOSED.)

  TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
  BURGESS HILL WATER BILL.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITAL-FIELDS MARKET) BILL.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

  E. Ilchester.

  E. Yarborough,

  L. Erskine,

  L. Harris (chairman),

  L. Ludlow;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at eleven o'clock;
  380
  and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
  GAS 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.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  ARDROSSAN GAS AND WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section (9), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 114.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  I. General Reports by the Chief Inspectors of the Northern and Southern Divisions of Scotland, for the year 1900.
  II. Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 14th June, 1901, providing for the distribution of the sum available for secondary or technical (including agricultural) education

  381
  under Section 2, Sub-section 4, of the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade.

  I. Authorising the construction of—

  1. A light railway in the rural district of Pately Bridge, in the West Riding of the county York, from Pately Bridge to Loft-house.

  2. Light railways from Ravens-thorpe to Cleckheaton in the West Riding of the county of York.

  3. Light railways in the borough of Dewsbury, the urban districts of Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heck-mondwike, Gomersal, Birkenshaw, Hunsworth, and Thorn-hill, and (under certain conditions) in the city of Bradford and the borough of Batley, in the West Riding of the county of York.

  4. A light railway in the county of Warwick, in the urban district of Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton, and the rural district of Atherstone.

  5. Light railways in the county of Nottingham, in the borough of Mansfield, and the urban districts of Mansfield, Woodhouse, Sutton-in-Ashfield, and Hucknall-under-Huthwaite.

  6. Light railways in the West Riding of the county of York, from Rothwell to Hunslet, and the working of the East and West Yorkshire Union Railways as light railways.

  II. Amending—

  1. The Mid-Suffolk Light Railway Order, 1900.

  2. The Isle of Thanet Light Railways Order, 1898.

  Forty-fourth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1900–1901.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 AND 1888.
  Special Report by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888: Penge Electric Lighting Order.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st December, 1900; together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Abstract of the Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, for the year 1899.

  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Accounts of receipts and expenditure under the Act, for the year 1900.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Corporation of Dundee; read, and ordered to lie upon the Table.
  DRUNKARDS BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Corporation of Glasgow; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Message from the Commons for leave for the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given accordingly, and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
THE PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
Report from the Joint Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee and an Appendix) made, and to be printed. [No. 111.]
THE PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made. Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 112.]
  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  DRUNKARDS BILL [H.L.]
  LICENSING BILL [H.L.].
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL'S PRINTING CONTRACT.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name, namely, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been called to the proceedings of the Sligo County Council on the 25th of May last, in connection with the printing contracts, and, if so, whether he can indicate any means by which the ratepayers can protect themselves against such reckless expenditure.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: In the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, I have to inform the noble Lord that the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the proceedings of the Sligo County Council of the 25th of May last, when a tender to execute the printing of the Council for £250 a year was accepted, notwithstanding that there were two other tenders for £175 10s. and £122 10s. respectively. The Board have no power to intervene in the matter, but it is open to any ratepayer who feels aggrieved to appear before the Local Government Board Auditor and question the additional expenditure involved by the acceptance of the highest tender. In the event of the auditor not making a surcharge, it would be competent for the ratepayer to bring the matter before the courts, with the view of obtaining an authoritative judicial decision on the question.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  Commons' Message considered (according to Order).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The only observation which I shall make in moving the motion standing in my name is that the name of the Lord Bishop of London has been omitted, and that of the Lord Bishop of Winchester inserted in the number of Peers who are to be contributed to the Committee by this House. That, apparently, was wished by those who had the care of the matter; and the Bishop of Winchester, I fancy, has had a good deal more experience of Queen Anne's Bounty Board than the Bishop of London, who acceded to the see at a comparatively recent period.
  Moved, that a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons, as mentioned in the said Message, and that the Lords following be named of the Committee, namely:—

  V. Gordon (E. Aberdeen),

  V. Cross,

  L. Bp. of Winchester,

  L. Barnard,

  L. Ashcombe.

  —(The Lord Privy Seed (M. Salisbury)); agreed to.
  Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Earl of Denbigh.) [No. 113.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.