Sitting of 17 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name, the object of which was to entitle the farmer to compensation for any loss he might sustain or suffer by reason of the making of an improper order. He would only ask his hon. friend the representative of the Local Government Board whether it would not

  531
  be possible to insert the clause in every private Bill of this kind, because he held that there ought to be a uniform system with regard to corporation Bills, and it ought not to be left to private Members or anyone else to get such clauses inserted in a Bill. Let the Local Government Board introduce some comprehensive measure making all the Bills uniform in this respect.
  MR. STRACHEYseconded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "In Clause 50, page 33, after paragraph (i) of Sub-section 5, to insert—(j) If an order is made without due cause, or if the Corporation unreasonably refuse to withdraw the order, the dairyman shall, if not himself in default, be entitled to recover from the Corporation full compensation for any damage which he has sustained by reason of the making of the order or of the refusal of the Corporation to withdraw the order. The Court or the Board of Agriculture may determine and state whether an order the subject of appeal has been made without due cause, and whether the Corporation have unreasonably refused to withdraw the order, and whether the dairyman has been in default. Any dispute as to the fact whether the order has been made or maintained without due cause, or as to the fact of default where any such fact has not been determined by the Court or Board of Agriculture, or as to the fact of damage, or as to the amount of compensation, shall be determined in the manner provided by Section 308 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and that section shall accordingly apply and have effect as if the same were herein re-enacted, and in terms made applicable to any such dispute as aforesaid."
  *MR. BILLsaid that as Chairman of the Committee before which the Brighton Corporation Bill came he would like to say that they were very careful to consider the case for compensation. They realised that there was a good deal to be said for it, but, on the other hand, no case had been brought to their knowledge in which any farmer had suffered by reason of the absence of such a clause, and they therefore
  532
  decided to leave it out, and adhere to the model clauses as they were passed last session. They had in the course of the inquiry the evidence of Dr. Niven, the Medical Officer of the Manchester Corporation, who certainly appeared to the Committee to have exercised the difficult and delicate powers entrusted to him in that particular with the greatest discretion. The witness told them he was aware of no case in which compensation could justly have been claimed, and it was chiefly owing to that gentleman's evidence that the Committee determined not to insert the compensation clause. At the same time, they recognised there might be a case in the future in which damage might be caused to the farmer, and under the circumstances, therefore, he did not oppose the motion before the House.
  MR. LODERsaid that in accepting the Amendment on behalf of the promoters of the Bill he wished it to be clearly understood that they in no way desired to prejudice the case of other corporations with whom they had been acting up till this time, and if any modification of the clause were deemed desirable at any future stage they reserved to themselves the right to bring it forward. With regard to the suggestion that a similar clause should be inserted in every Bill, he thought the success of model clauses in the past did not augur well for such clauses in the future, especially when they remembered the departure made two years previously in regard to the question of tuberculosis.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLagreed that the time had come for the Government to deal with this question. To his knowledge, fifteen years ago Committees upstairs were asked to give an opinion on this matter. The controversies on it had been acute, and they had also been continuous. This was a subject of growing importance, and he hoped that they would more and more devote their attention to the value of milk as a food for young children. The Government ought to take care that clauses dealing with this matter were both uniform and effective. Good work had been done by general legislation in regard to the registration of infectious diseases, and he

  533
  hoped that the House of Commons would in that matter follow the example which they had themselves set in the past.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that there were two distinct interests involved in this question, and he did hope that the representative of the Local Government Board would save the time of the House by agreeing to have the whole subject submitted to a Select Committee, so that they might put an end to these interminable discussions.
  SIR JOHN LENGsaid the dairy owner had, of course, an interest in this question, but the paramount point was the health of the people in our large towns. Before model clauses were adopted they ought, however, to be carefully considered, and it should be clearly understood that the acceptance of the Brighton clause did not bind other corporations without careful inquiry.
  MR. FIELDobjected to the adoption of this clause without further discussion. The subject was one which required careful consideration.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said the Local Government Board were in favour of the clause, because they thought it highly desirable in the interests of the public health. Under the Public Health Act, 1875, if a corporation made a wrong order it was liable to pay compensation to the person injured thereby, but that provision did not extend to the present case, and he thought it was only fair that it should. He did not think that other corporations were likely to object to the insertion in their Bills of a similar clause, and he could assure the House that though the Local Government Board had no power to veto, they would use their influence to get a like clause adopted in similar cases. But in reply to the hon. Member for Wigan, he was bound to say there was no chance of the Government bringing forward a Bill this session to make the clause obligatory in all such cases. Their hands were already full.
  New clause agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time.

BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*MR. CAUSTONsaid it would not be necessary for him to move the motion standing in his name for the rejection of the Bill, but as a matter of public interest he desired to explain why he originally opposed the measure and now withdrew his opposition. The hospital was situated in the borough of Southwark, the buildings and grounds covering an area of about fifteen acres, and forming a most valuable breathing space in the neighbourhood described by Mr. Charles Booth as the most crowded part of London. The site of the hospital was held under leases from the City Corporation dated 1810 and 1838, and under the Bill before the House the governors sought powers to lease a part of their possessions. The Borough Council of Southwark vigorously protested against the powers being given, and petitioned against the Bill. Since notice of opposition had been given the governors had been in communication with the Borough Council, and had given an assurance that they had no intention of parting with any portion of their Southwark possessions, the real object of the Bill being to enable them to sell some land in Kent, somewhere between Margate and Westgate. They had also given an undertaking to introduce in Committee a clause to the effect that nothing in the Act shall empower the governors to demise for any term of years for building or any other purposes, or to sublease or otherwise effect a deal with, any of the, lands comprised in the leases, and the Borough Council were satisfied that that clause would prevent the governors dealing with the land without obtaining further powers. He might add that a large proportion of the cost of erecting the present hospital was found out of money

535
provided by Parliament. Although he should have liked the proposed clause to be in somewhat stronger terms, he was so far satisfied with the undertaking of the governors that he should not move his proposed motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read second time and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (New Ross and Waterford Extension) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [Lords];

  Bolton Corporation Bill [Lords];

  Bristol Corporation Cemetery Bill [Lords];

  Dover Corporation Bill [Lords];

  Great Southern and Western Railway Bill [Lords];

  Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [Lords];

  Wisbech Water Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the
  536
  case of the Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords] originating and now pending in the Lords, and referred, pursuant to the Order of this House of the 12th day of June, a statement of the number of houses of the labouring classes proposed to be taken, has been deposited in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons and at the Office of the Central Authority.

  ECCLES CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON (CITY) SCHOOLS FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  OTLEY GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
  YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BRIDEWELL HOSPITAL BILL [Lords] [BY ORDER].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the Quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—(Mr. Halsey.)

  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Petition of the Vicar and People's Churchwarden of the Church of Saint Peter, Bournemouth, against the Bournemouth Corporation Bill [Lords], if presented not later than seven clear days from the date hereof,

  537
  be referred to the Committee on the Bill; and that the said Petitioners be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  (UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.)
  Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

  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.
  Read the third time and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Also 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 Aberavon, Ashton-in-Maker-field, Hampton, Hoddesdon, Ince-in-Makerfield, Mountain Ash, Neath (Rural District), Pontypridd, Teddington, and Worsley." Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords].
  And 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 Horsham Gas, Nuneaton Gas, Pinner Gas, and Swaffham Gas." Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
  TOOK THE OATH.
  One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Newcastle-on-Tyne, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Lewisham and Beverley; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Burnley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from London County Council; Child's Hill (three); Droylsden; Garnant; Oldswinford; Lewisham; Manchester (two); Warrington; Portsmouth; Bacup; Bethnal Green; and Southsea; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dunsyre and Arderseer; to lie upon the Table.
  SINGH, MAGAN.
  Petition of Magan Singh, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COAL TABLES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th June; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]
  HARWICH HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1901, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 214.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2628 to 2630 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The auditor whom I have appointed to conduct the audit of the accounts of the London Borough Councils is an officer of considerable experience. His duties will in the main be similar to those of other district auditors, and I have not deemed it necessary to issue any general instructions to him. There will be a right of appeal to the Local Government Board or to the High Court against any surcharge made by the auditor.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—SIR DAVID BARBOUR'S REPORT.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet come to any decision in reference to the recommendations contained in Sir David Barbour's Report, and, if so, can he state when it will be communicated to the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Report deals with a very large number of complicated and important details, and it will be evident to the hon. Member that an immediate decision is not required in the majority of cases. His Majesty's Government agree with the general principles laid down, and their application will be confided to Lord Milner, who will deal with them as opportunity arises. I cannot give a pledge that he will follow the Report in all particulars, and there are, of course, many points on which further information is required which can only be gained on the spot.
  MR. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that we shall have the particulars of the decisions on the points as they arise?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman wishes information on any particular point I shall be glad to give it to him as far as it is in my power to do so. As I have pointed out before, in reference to resettlement in South Africa, it is a matter which is most involved, and which cannot be settled all at once.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing this Report?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, Sir. The hon. Gentleman can discuss it on my salary.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to inform the House as to whether the Government are in agreement with that portion of Sir David Barbour's Report which recommends that the tax on the mines shall be increased from five to ten per cent., and, if so, will that be done soon?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We are in general agreement, as I have said, with the principle laid down that an increased tax on the profits of the mines should be imposed. But as the hon. Gentleman is aware, Sir David Barbour also recommends that a decrease of taxation should take place upon other articles.

  LAND SETTLEMENT COMMISSION'S REPORT.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, now that the Report of Sir David Barbour on the financial position of the Transvaal has been issued, he will proceed to complete the facts laid before Parliament by issuing also the Report of the South African Land Settlement Commission.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member does not appear to be aware that the Report in question was laid on the 7th instant.

  CAMPS OF CONCENTRATION—MORTALITY STATISTICS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now inform the House as to the number and situation of the camps of concentration formed in Cape Colony, and how many men, women, and children are confined therein, and what have been the figures of mortality therein.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The places where the camps have been formed are:—Kimberley, Orange River Camp (near Hopetown), Vryburg, Warrenton, and Boer Exile Camp at Port Elizabeth. Lord Kitchener has promised me some figures by telegraph as to the numbers and mortality,
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the numbers of white persons now or recently in the concentration camps in Natal and the Transvaal, Orange River, and Cape Colonies respectively; also the dietary for adults and for children in force in these several districts. I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state what regulations are now in force in the various concentration camps in South Africa as to the detention of the women and children confined in them; and whether he will consider the desirability of permitting at least those women and children who have no male person with them in the camps, and who have friends or relatives in Cape Colony willing to receive them, to leave the camps and go to these friends.
  MR. BRODRICK: The numbers are approximately as follow:—Transvaal, 37,739; Natal, 2,524; Orange River Colony, 20,374; Cape Colony, 2,490; Of these a large number are natives. The dietary of free issues consists of meat, bread or flour, meal, coffee, sugar, salt, and condensed milk. As the proportions vary somewhat in the different colonies, it is not possible to give full details in reply to a question. The supply of meat is from two to four pounds, and of bread, flour, or meal about seven pounds per week. To children under five, four tins milk and meal. The women and children have been in most instances brought into the camps because they cannot be fed at isolated stations, or because it was necessary to clear the districts in which they were living. I am communicating with Lord Kitchener respecting the release of those who may have friends willing to receive them.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the rate of mortality among the women and children?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have had notice or a question in the name of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, and I can answer it with regard to Johannesburg if he wishes to put it.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Perhaps it will be convenient
  542
  if I read the question, of which I gave private notice two days ago:—Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that for three weeks ending the 13th May there were 80 deaths out of a total of 3,125 persons in the refugee camp on the racecourse at Johannesburg, and that 220 are reported sick in the camp; whether he can state what medical provision there is for treatment of the sick in this camp, and whether the sanitary and other arrangements for the health of the refugees in this and other camps are satisfactory; between what dates did the deaths take place of 41 men, 80 women, and 261 children in the camps in the Orange River Colony reported on the 7th May; how many deaths of men, women, and children took place in such camps before and after those dates; and what is the total number of deaths of men, women, and children respectively which have taken place in the refugee camps up to the present time.
  MR. BRODRICK: The deaths at Johannesburg camp from the 1st to the 31st May amounted to six men, six women, and 68 children, and are accounted for by an epidemic of measles. There is an experienced medical officer in charge, assisted by a qualified matron and a large staff of nurses. The hospital is a well-suited, commodious brick building. The deaths for the first week in June were one woman and three children. There is no reason to suppose that the medical arrangements in this or other camps are unsatisfactory. As to the third and fourth paragraphs of the question I have no information. The deaths in the Transvaal camps for May were 39 men, 47 women, and 250 children. Further statistics have been promised me as to the other three colonies.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are these persons regarded as prisoners, or are they at liberty to leave the camp if they think fit?
  MR. BRODRICK: As I have explained, the women and children have been brought in because in most cases they required relief or they were in parts of the country which for military reasons it was necessary to clear. As to the point of their leaving, in no case will the

  543
  Government permit them to go, or will Lord Kitchener permit them to go, unless they have got places to go to in which they can be fed. The Government cannot undertake to feed a large body of people in isolated positions. As regards permission to quit the camp to those who have friends I am in communication with Lord Kitchener.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In regard to these figures for the Transvaal, and in regard to the 336 deaths for May, do they cover the native as well as the white camps?
  MR. BRODRICK: My impression is that these figures cover the whole of the camps.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: As this is a very serious matter, I wish to ask the Government whether they do not consider that it would be infinitely more humane if these women were to be kept prisoners—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot enter into a debate on this question.
  MR. C. R. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the figures given in reply to my question include natives as well as white persons?
  MR. BRODRICK: The figures include a large number of natives.
  DR. AMBROSE: Is the death-rate from measles as high for any hospital in the United Kingdom?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDrising—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Any further questions must be given notice of. The question on the Paper has been fully answered.

  GENERAL CARRINGTON.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that, in the view of the Government, there is nothing in Major Sir F. Carrington's recent service in South Africa to call for special report, it
  544
  is now intended to restore that officer to his command of the Belfast district, which will be vacated in the ordinary course by Major-General Leach in September next, or if it is intended to again employ him; and, if not, can he say why this officer will not be again employed; and whether the appointment of this officer to command troops in Rhodesia was made in direct opposition to the advice of members of the Army Board at the War Office.
  MR. BRODRICK: I must decline in this and all other cases to give reasons for the employment or non-employment of a particular officer. All recommendations for command are made to the Secretary of State, both in war and peace, by the Commander-in-Chief, and Sir Frederick Carrington is no exception to the rule.
  MR. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the decision of the Army Board was unanimous?
  MR. BRODRICK: I shall entirely decline to give an answer to that or any other question addressed to me of similar import. The proceedings of the Army Board are private. The recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief are made to the Secretary of State, and on these recommendations officers are either appointed or not appointed to commands.
  MR. PIRIE: Was General Carrington relieved of his command—
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants to put any further questions he must give notice.
  MR. PIRIE: I will give notice.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES—VOLUNTEER OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that Volunteer officers receive an allowance of 11s. 6d. per diem when attending manœuvres or camps of instruction, will he say whether any additional allowance will be made to field officers, who have to provide and feed a horse.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The mounted officer will, in addition to the allowance mentioned, draw an allowance to cover forage at the rate of 1s. 6d. a day.

  BUCKS VOLUNTEERS—PAY OF SOUTH AFRICAN DETACHMENT.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Wolverton detachment of the 1st Bucks Rifle Volunteer Corps, recently returned from South Africa, was discharged within seven days of its arrival, and as other Volunteer detachments returning under the same circumstances, having completed their term of service in South Africa, have received up to thirty days furlough, he will provide that the Bucks Volunteers should receive the same treatment as others have had, and will he say whether the gratuity in lieu of furlough is granted to all branches of the service, or only to Volunteers.
  LORD STANLEY: As I have already informed the House, a furlough of thirty days with pay will be granted to all members of Volunteer service companies. It will also be granted to all Imperial Yeomen discharged before the higher rates of pay came into operation.

  WAR OFFICE DECENTRALISATION.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will present a return of the recommendations of the Decentralisation Committee of 1898, showing how far these recommendations have been carried out, wholly or partially, and where only partially adopted in what manner they differ from the original recommendations of the Committee.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member will find the principal changes approved in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee of 1898 on page 460 of the Evidence of the War Office Organisation Committee of 1901; and
  546
  the minor changes on pages xii. to xxiv. of the Report of 1898.

  ARMY REFORM.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a scheme of Army reform was prepared by Lord Wolseley for Mr. Cardwell, of which a portion, including short service, was adopted by the Ministry of the day and by Parliament; and, if so, if he will lay upon the Table of the House the original draft of such scheme.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not clear to what the hon. Member refers. When Mr. Cardwell introduced his scheme to this House in 1870 Lord Wolseley was serving in Canada. He afterwards served on a Committee which worked out the detailed reorganisation required by Mr. Cardwell's scheme and reported in 1872, but he does not appear to have drafted any separate scheme.

  DECEASED SOLDIERS' ESTATES—CASE OF JOHN CURTIN.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any further inquiry has been made in reference to the subject of a letter from Mr. John Curtin, of Tallow, county Waterford, dated 8th October, 1900, to the Under Secretary of State for War, relative to the affairs of Private Patrick Curtin, No. 4,255, deceased, of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment; if not, whether an effort will be made, by due inquiry on the spot, to ascertain whether the colour sergeant or the coffee contractor referred to therein are unlawfully retaining possession of moneys of the deceased soldier.
  LORD STANLEY: I have nothing to add to the reply communicated to the hon. Member by letter on 21st November last, after exhaustive inquiries. The transaction was entirely a private one, with which the War Office is in no way concerned. I am, however, satisfied that the full amount of the money deposited with the contractor by the deceased soldier was duly returned either to him or to his representatives.

  SOLDIERS' RATIONS—POISONED TINNED MEATS.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the poisoning of about fifteen soldiers of the York and Lancaster Regiment at Fermoy Barracks through eating tinned beef served out for breakfast rations; can he state the name of the contractor who supplied this tinned beef and the name of manufacturer and place of manufacture; and will he explain why tinned meat is still being issued to the troops on home stations instead of home-grown meat.
  LORD STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member would kindly refer to the full answer given by me on Friday last to the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire.*
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: But that is not an answer to my question.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will orders be issued prohibiting the further issue of tinned meats to the troops?
  LORD STANLEY: It was not a question of issuing them. They were drawn by the men from the canteen and paid for. I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the commanding officer in this matter.
  MR. FIELD: Have the officers anything to do with the running of the canteen in this particular place?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.

  TROOPS IN IRELAND—BEER CONTRACTS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at the meeting of the Irish Trades Congress at Sligo protesting against the contract for beer and porter for the troops in Ireland being withdrawn from Irish firms; whether any complaint has ever been made as to the quality or purity of the beer or porter supplied by the Irish
  * See page 412.
  548
  brewers; and whether, seeing that an influential authority has stated that all articles for barrack necessaries should be obtained in the districts where the troops are stationed, he will see that the old system be reverted to.
  LORD STANLEY: A copy of this resolution was sent to the War Office. Nothing is known there of any such complaint, nor would be, as this is purely a matter for the local military authorities to deal with. There has been no change of system, as the local military authorities have power to place orders for malt liquor with the firms they consider most desirable.

  IRISH BARRACK STORES.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the Report of the evidence of the Commander-in-Chief for Ireland on War Office organisation, in which he complained of the practice of sending to Woolwich for articles such as ladders, brushes, brooms, and other barrack stores, which he alleges could be more readily and cheaply got in Ireland; and will he take such steps as will give effect to the statement and views of his Royal Highness by the establishment of works for their manufacture in that country.
  LORD STANLEY: The General Officer commanding the forces in Ireland has already been instructed to use his discretion in regard to such local purchases. The supply, however, is too small to justify the creation of any local factory.

  PENRHYN QUARRY DISPUTE-MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state who applied for the aid of the military at the Penrhyn quarries, when the application was received, and whether any disturbances have arisen in the district which the police are unable to cope with; and, if so, when these disturbances occurred.
  LORD STANLEY: The chief constable of the county asked that the troops might be held in readiness. The application

  549
  was received by the general officer commanding the district on the 4th June. The nature and period of the disturbances are not questions which come within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for War.

  LONDON VOLUNTEERS—DRILL SHEDS AND RANGES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that under the provisions of Section 31 of the London Government Act, 1899, borough councils in the Metropolis have no power of proceeding under the Military Lands Act, 1892, towards assisting and co-operating with the Volunteers of London in the provision of drill sheds, drill grounds, and rifle ranges; and if, having regard to the importance of the question, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to grant London borough councils analogous facilities in this matter to those enjoyed by provincial municipalities.
  LORD STANLEY: I am aware of the disability of the metropolitan borough councils in this respect. I do not, however, consider that any good purpose would be served by legislation in the direction proposed, as the powers already possessed by the London County Council appear to be ample.

  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  MR. MAJENDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can inform the House what portion of the £370,895 18s. 7d., proceeds of Naval Prize Money, Bounty and Salvage, referred to in the Return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated 3rd March, 1863, has been paid out to the persons entitled, and what is the balance remaining unpaid; and whether any list of the several persons entitled to this unpaid balance has ever been put up at the Admiralty and notified to claimants; if not, whether any attempts have been made to trace out and inform the persons respectively entitled to receive the same.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The balance of Naval Prize Money
  550
  remaining unpaid and payable, if applied for, on the 31st March, 1900, was £50,353. The account for the present year will be published next month. Announcements are made from time to time in the London Gazette, when funds become available for distribution, and there is reason to believe that these notices are largely copied in other newspapers. A Return showing the names of the several persons who became entitled and have yet to be paid, with the amounts due to them respectively, is in course of preparation, and will be published when completed.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the original design for the construction of Haulbowline Dockyard it was proposed to build two dry docks; and whether, in view of the increasing necessity for additional dock accommodation, the Admiralty will consider the desirability of carrying out the original plan and constructing a second dry dock at Haulbowline.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The original design for the extension of Haulbowline Dockyard allotted a portion of the available space for the construction of two dry docks, but it was recommended that only one should be proceeded with at the time, and this dock has been completed. In 1895 a Committee appointed to investigate the question reported that the construction of a slipway on a portion of the ground allotted to the second dock was desirable in the interests of the service, and the slipway was accordingly constructed. There is still space available if it should be necessary at a future date to construct a second dry dock, but it is not proposed to commence this work at present.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the fact that all the work executed in this dockyard has given complete satisfaction?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Undoubtedly it has.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Then will the hon. Gentleman suggest that this matter be reconsidered?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. The question is one for the naval authorities, who have to decide what are the most pressing needs of the naval service.

  CHINA—PERMANENT BRITISH GARRISON.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what troops will constitute the permanent British garrison in China, in addition to the troops at Peking, and at what points they will be stationed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I am not in a position now to state exactly what troops will be left, or the composition of the force to be left at specific points; but the permanent garrison will only form a comparatively small proportion of those who constituted the expeditionary force.

  GERMAN GARRISON AT SHANGHAI.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communications have passed between the British Foreign Office and the German Government as to the decision of the latter to leave a German garrison at Shanghai.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): No, Sir.

  INDIA COUNCIL BILLS AND TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFERS.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the difference of a sixteenth of a penny ordinarily made by the India Council between the sale of bills and telegraphic transfers represents a charge of 9½ per cent. per annum; and whether, in view of this impost upon banking and commercial transactions, he will give instructions for reducing the difference by one moiety, except on occasions when conditions of financial stringency prevail in India.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The difference of a sixteenth of a penny per rupee
  552
  between the price of bills on India and that of telegraphic transfers represents a charge of 9½ per cent. per annum if it can be assumed that all such bills, whether drawn on Calcutta, Madras, or Bombay, can be presented in fifteen days; but this is not the case. To give the telegraphic transfers at only one-thirty-secondth of a penny more than the bills would, with the present rate of discount, be in effect to lend the money at cheaper rates than that at which the Presidency Banks are lending it.

  IMPERIAL COURT OF APPEAL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what progress has been made in reference to the establishment of the proposed Imperial Court of Appeal; and whether the colonies have intimated their approval of the establishment of such a court.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements have been made for holding towards the end of this month a Conference on the subject at which all the colonies will be represented. The object of this Conference is to elicit an expression of the opinion of the colonies on this subject, and pending the conclusion of its labours I am unable to make any further statement.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Have the Government abandoned the intention mentioned in the King's Speech of introducing legislation this year on the subject?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, Sir, I think that, owing to the time which has been taken by the negotiations with the colonies, it would be impossible to hold out much hope, even if the Conference should prove unanimous, of giving effect this session to any conclusion which may be arrived at.

  ALIEN IMMIGRANTS IN LONDON.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Return recently issued shows that a number of aliens, mainly from Russia, Roumania, and Poland, came to this country last

  553
  year under the impression that they would find in London either an organisation prepared with plans and funds to equip and forward all applicants to Canada, or an assured career in England; and having regard to the fact that pauper aliens of these nationalities have increased in the East End of London during the year, will he consider the advisability of instructing the British representatives in the countries indicated to take such steps as may be necessary to correct any false statement which may be circulated in regard to the prospects of pauper aliens arriving in London.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The statement alluded to was derived from the Report of the Jewish Board of Guardians, and rests upon the authority of that body. Until the Census Returns are completed it cannot be said whether the numbers of aliens in East London have increased. Warnings in regard to the prospects of pauper aliens in London were circulated by Her Majesty's Consuls in 1891 and 1893.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is there any prospect of the introduction of the Government Bill prohibiting the importation of aliens?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That question should be addressed to my right hon. friend.

  GIBRALTAR WORKS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Gibraltar Committee in reply to the questions addressed to it made at Gibraltar on 30th March, and also the subsequent Report made by some members on 15th May; and, if so, when; and will he say when and how he proposes to afford the House an opportunity of discussing these Reports.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Yes, Sir. There are, as the hon. Member says, two Reports in question. There is the Interim Report—(laughter)—avowedly an Interim Report—of 30th March, and there is a Report of 15th May,
  554
  signed by all the members of the Committee except the Member for King's Lynn. There are parts of these Reports which, by universal consent, ought not to be laid on the Table of the House; but I see no reason why the greater part of both Reports should not be textually laid on the Table, and I propose to do that.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any diplomatic protest or representation has been made by the Spanish Government against the carrying out of the Naval works at Gibraltar.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, Sir. No such representation has been made.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will open negotiations with the Government of Spain with a view to obtaining the cession of the western shore of Gibraltar Bay and sufficient of the adjacent territory to enable the port to be securely fortified, and whether any offer to purchase the Spanish side of Gibraltar Bay has ever been made by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: May I respectfully ask whether, considering the mischievous excitement already created in Spain, the right hon. Gentleman will decline to answer such a question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with my hon. friend that no great public advantage is served by putting such questions, but as this question has been put it is as well to answer it. I will say that the Government have never made any proposal to purchase, and do not propose to make any proposal to purchase, any part of Spanish territory.

  SUGAR DUTY—LOW GRADE MOLASSES.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the reduction in the duty on low grade molasses imported chiefly for cattle-feeding purposes, whether the importers

  555
  of such molasses between 18th April and 10th June, who have been charged with the higher duty imposed during that interval, and who have warehoused the article pending a final decision as to the duty, will be refunded to the extent of the excess of the amount paid by them over the rates as finally settled.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member could be adopted. In the first place, various importers who have paid the 2s. duty must, under Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876, have added it to their prices and recovered it from their customers, so that it would be most difficult to repay the extra duty to those who have actually paid it; and, in the second place, this particular reduction is only one item in an amended scale for molasses and glucose, and there is no reason for making the reductions retrospective unless the increases are to be treated similarly, and this would not be practicable. My intention is therefore to ask Parliament to sanction the duty on the scale originally proposed up to the 10th instant, and the new scale from that date. It must be remembered that these importers must have known that a reduction of the duty was under consideration, and might have placed their molasses in bond until required. If no bonded premises were vacant for these purposes, temporary bonding privileges would have been granted to their private premises on application to the Customs.

  INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS.
  MR. M'CRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of introducing into the Finance Bill a clause repealing the proviso to Rule Fifth of No. 2, Schedule A., s. 60, 5 and 6 Vic, c. 35, by which, contrary to the principles dealing with all other kinds of income, fines received in consideration of any demise of land or tenements are, if applied to productive capital, exempted from income tax, and whether he can state the amount so exempted for the year 1900–1901.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The proviso does not appear to be "contrary to
  556
  the principles dealing with all other kinds of income." It provides that fines (which may arise in many different ways and circumstances) should be chargeable as income when, as a matter of fact, they are treated by the recipient as income, but should be exempted when treated as capital. In the case of Settled Estates, for instance, fines must by law be treated as capital, and the life tenant is not entitled to anything more than the interest arising from their investment. It would be manifestly unjust to require that in such circumstances the amount of the fine should be subject to income tax. Moreover, it must not be overlooked that the property from which fines issue is taxed on its full annual value, irrespective of actual rent, so that in a sense there is a double assessment where fines are charged with income tax. It is not possible to give the amounts exempted under the proviso.
  MR. M'CRAE: Seeing that the exemption of building lease fines is totally different to the state of affairs contemplated when the Act was passed, cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can add nothing to the answer I have given. It explains the reason for the exemption.

  WAPPING STREET DISTURBANCE.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any explanation of the absence of the police for over twenty minutes while a disturbance was taking place in St. George's Street, Wapping, over the breaking into of a house by an under tenant, who alleged his landlord had illegally evicted him early on Saturday, 8th June, 1901, and whether any proceedings were taken by the police against the under tenant, who was arrested by them; if so, can he state what punishment was inflicted on him.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): This case was one of assault preferred by a private person, and the prisoners were arrested on his charging them. They duly appeared

  557
  before the magistrate, and were discharged. Nothing was said as to the absence of police during the disturbance, which occurred chiefly inside the house, but constables were there at 7·40 and again at 8 on the night in question.
  MR. MURPHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was a witness myself of the absence of the police?

  MORTALITY AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IN SOUTH WALES COLLIERIES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can afford any explanation of the fact that the death rate from accident of persons of sixteen years of age and under employed in collieries in the South Wales district has latterly increased, and that it was higher in 1900 than in any previous year in the decade; and if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, whereas in each of the five years of 1891 to 1895 inclusive, the death rate was less than that among persons of over sixteen years of age, in each of the years 1896 to 1900 it was higher, and that in the last five years it was forty-five per cent. greater than in the previous five years.
  *MR. RITCHIE: It is true that there has been a rise in the death rate among persons under sixteen in mines in South Wales, and that for the last five years it is higher than the death rate among persons over sixteen, whereas in the preceding five years it was lower. In the preceding five years, however, the death rate among persons over sixteen was abnormally heavy, and the rate has declined from 3·50 during those years to 2 during the last five years. A large proportion of the accidents to boys occur in connection with haulage underground, and the reasons for the increase in the death rate among them are perhaps to be found in the greater amount of haulage done in the mines now as compared with previous years, the increased use of machinery, and the greater number of boys employed in connection with machinery.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS IN WELSH COLLIERIES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  558
  Department whether his attention has been called to the disparity in the death rate from falls of roof and side during the last seven years in collieries in the South Wales district employing over 1,000 persons, as shown in Mr. Robson's report for 1900, and that the highest annual average death rate in these collieries was three times that of the lowest; and whether he can give any reason for this.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I have seen the figures which appear in the report recently made by Mr. Robson. The hon. Member will have observed that the figures show disparities not only between different mines, but also between different years at the same mine; and where, as in the case of these collieries, the numbers involved are comparatively small, fluctuations in the death rate from year to year are sure to occur. On the other hand, some mines are shown by the figures over the whole seven years to be safer than others; and the reason of this may possibly be that the roof in these mines is of a better quality, while something is also to be attributed to differences of management and supervision.

  GAMBLING IN GRAIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any measures have been taken by the Board of Trade in order to co-operate with Germany and other nations which have introduced legislation with the purpose of preventing gambling in futures or options in grain, for the purpose of discouraging corners in foodstuffs, as opposed to the interests of producers and consumers.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): No such measures have been taken.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—REGISTRATION OF TONNAGE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the advisability of introducing regulations which will ensure a uniform proportion of registered tonnage of vessels engaged in the cross Channel

  559
  and coasting trade of the United Kingdom.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matter to which the hon. Member refers is receiving careful consideration, and so far as reasonable uniformity can be obtained by Board of Trade regulations I shall endeavour to secure it.

  PREVENTION OF RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—RULES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps other than publication in the London Gazette were taken by his Department, as required by the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, to inform the persons affected of the place where the draft of the Prevention of Accidents Rules, 1901, recently issued, might be obtained, and of the time within which objections or suggestions might be lodged with the Board of Trade; whether he is aware that in many cases owners of wagons received the information indirectly and some time after the draft rules were issued; and whether, having regard to the interchange of traffic that takes place between the various railway systems, and the fact that no wagon constructed or reconstructed after twelve months from the coming into operation of the rules may be received or used for traffic on any railway without brake levers that can be conveniently operated upon from either side of the wagons, he will, with a view to securing uniformity, consider the advisability of indicating a standard brake to which all brakes should conform in order to meet the minimum of convenience required by the Board of Trade.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A copy of the Gazette notice was sent in April to each of forty-six newspapers and reviews, as well as to four press agencies, and to the various companies and persons to whom railway accidents reports are usually sent. Copies of the draft rules were sent on the same date to the Railway Companies' Association, the Association of Private Owners of Railway Rolling Stock, the Railway Carriage and Wagon Builders' Association, and the Mining Association of Great Britain. About 900 copies of the Draft Rules have been
  560
  supplied, in all, to persons and companies affected. The point raised in the last part of the hon. Member's question is one to be considered in connection with the objections which have been made to the draft rules under Section 2 of the Act. These objections will, in the first instance, be submitted to Lord James of Hereford, who will advise the Board thereon.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of colliery owners, owning considerably over a thousand wagons, who never received any notice at all?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware of that, but I should imagine it is impossible to directly notify everybody.

  FARMERS AND METEOROLOGICAL REPORTS.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, seeing that requests have frequently been made by farmers' clubs and associations interested in agriculture for the daily publication at sub-post offices in agricultural districts of the forecast of the weather, whether, in order to assist farmers during the harvest, he will consider the question of having every evening until the end of September the forecast of the weather for the following day telegraphed to those sub-post offices in agricultural districts to which there is telegraphic communication.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): In 1893 arrangements were made by the Board of Agriculture for exhibiting, by way of experiment, at telegraph stations in Northumberland and Essex, the daily weather forecasts issued during the hay and corn harvests by the Meteorological Council. In the following year a similar experiment was tried in the counties of Somerset, Carnarvon, Ayr, Cambridge, the East Riding of Yorkshire, and Haddington. Residents in the counties were invited to record their observations of the weather during the period, and the reports were carefully tabulated and examined. The areas to which the forecasts apply were found to be too

  561
  wide and varied to allow of anything like close accuracy as regards the weather to be expected at any given place, and it did not appear that the assistance rendered to agriculturists was sufficient to justify the Board in asking the Treasury to sanction the continuance of the experiment or its application to the country generally.

  BUTTER ADULTERATION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the case of the Stepney Borough Council versus Isaac Simons, grocer, 20, Samuel Street, St. George's-in-the-East, at the Thames Police Court, in which defendant was fined 20s. and costs for selling butter containing 40·6 per cent. of water, according to Somerset House analysis, was brought under his notice; whether, with the view of settling a legal standard of water allowable in butter, he will at once appoint a Committee to inquire into the question; and, if so, will he state whether the evidence of experts in the Irish butter trade will be received, and where will the inquiry be held.
  *MR. HANBURY: My attention has been called to the case mentioned in the question. I hope to appoint the Committee almost immediately.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence?
  *MR. HANBURY: Yes, and the case will be carefully considered.

  LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUDITORS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any general instructions will be issued by the Local Government Board to the auditors to be appointed under the London Government Act of 1899; and, if so, whether these instructions will be sent to the borough councils for their information and guidance, and, in the event of any auditor making a surcharge on the ground of illegal expenditure, will the council at fault have any right of appeal; and, if so, to whom.

  BOY COPYISTS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can say how many boys have been admitted into the Civil Service as boy copyists for the last three years; how many have left the service or been dismissed during that time; and how many have got permanent employment in the Civil Service.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): During the three years 1898–1900 3,189 boys have been added to the register, 956 boy coypists have left the service or been dismissed, and 768 have been appointed to permanent situations in the Civil Service.

  SOLDIER POSTMEN AND THE GOOD CONDUCT STRIPE.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will consider the expediency of allowing postmen and porters returning from active service in South Africa the right to wear a good conduct stripe, and will he arrange for the extra pay which the stripe carries to be granted to these men on their resuming duty at the pest office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A good conduct stripe is awarded as a reward for five years unblemished service. It is not proposed to alter the qualifying period on account of service in South Africa.

  WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, in respect to the promised Government Bill for affording to teachers in public elementary schools a method of repeal or redress against wrongful dismissal from employment, whether the difficulties which were engaging the attention of the Lord President of the Council have been successfully dealt with; and when the Bill will be introduced.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Bill is in preparation and will be introduced shortly.

  RICHMOND PARK GATEKEEPERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the present holder of the post of gatekeeper of Ham Gate, in Richmond Park, is a former valet of the Deputy Ranger; and if he would urge upon the Ranger of Richmond Park the propriety of appointing old soldiers of good character to these offices.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I am informed that the man referred to was formerly in the service of Admiral FitzGeorge, the Deputy Ranger, and that he had been previously in the Royal Navy. I have no right to interfere with the Ranger in the exercise of his patronage; but I may say on the best authority that his Royal Highness does give consideration to the claims of old soldiers, but not to the exclusion of old servants.
  MAJOR RASCH: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Balaclava veteran has been removed from the Kingston Gate and a domestic servant of the Duke appointed in his place by His Royal Highness as Ranger?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir, I have no knowledge of such fact, and, as I have already reminded my hon. and gallant friend, I have no voice in the appointment of these gatekeepers.

  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the National Gallery will be completely isolated from the buildings which now adjoin it by effecting the changes which will be authorised by the passage of the National Gallery (Purchase of Adjacent Land) Bill; and will he state what distance from the National Gallery the nearest buildings will be.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir. The National Gallery will be completely isolated from the buildings which are adjacent to it on the west; the nearest building will be the south-east angle of a stable, which will be 35 feet from the north-west corner of the National Gallery; with this exception the space between the buildings will be about 40 feet.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will no portion of the barracks be in touch with the National Gallery?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The southern portion of the barracks adjoining the National Gallery will be pulled down at the end of the present year.

  BALLYVAUGHAN FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire into the position of the fishing industry in the neighbourhood of Ballyvaughan, county Clare; and whether he will see that something is done to assist the fishermen of that district.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The fishing industry in the neighbourhood of Ballyvaughan has been for some time the subject of inquiry by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and it is hoped that it may be possible materially to develop it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hold out some hope that something will soon be done in the matter?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do hold out that hope.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland have not attached marks to the honour subjects in the intermediate programme, and if he can say whether these subjects are of equal value.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the new Intermediate Programme, as all honour subjects are of equal value it was deemed unnecessary by the Board to attach marks to these subjects.

  INSPECTORS OF IRISH FISHERIES—REPORT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say why the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for 1900 has not yet been presented to Parliament, and when it will be presented.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report is in the printers' hands, and, it is expected, will be ready for presentation about the end of this month.

  POTATO SPRAYING IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number, names, and qualifications and emoluments of the persons appointed in connection with the spraying of potatoes in Ireland this season.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Instruction in the spraying of potatoes forms part of the duties of the six Agricultural Instructors in the service of the Congested Districts Board. A statement of the names, qualifications, and emoluments of these persons is being prepared and will be forwarded to the hon. Member.

  IRISH FISHERY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any appointment has yet been made of a Fishery Commissioner in the place of
  566
  MR. Cecil Roche, and, if so, will he state who it is; and, if not, can he say whether there is any difficulty in the way of making an appointment, and, if so, what is its nature, or for what other reason the place has not been filled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. D. H. Lane has been appointed temporarily as Inspector of Fisheries in succession to Mr. Roche.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman is a brewer, and has spent all his life in brewing?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that.
  MR. FLYNN: Well, I am.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am well aware that he has given great assistance to Mr. Green, one of the Fishery Inspectors, and that he has a practical knowledge of the question.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: What is the practical knowledge which this brewer has?
  MR. WYNDHAM: He has held the position of manager of a large salmon fishery, although he is now vacating it in order that he may be quite independent.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is it not the fact that he was appointed not because of his knowledge of the subject, but because he belongs to a particular political denomination?
  DR. AMBROSE: Has he any acquaintance with deep sea fisheries?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman says the appointment is temporary. Can he make it permanent without legislation?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes. He has been appointed provisionally for one year at a salary of £500. He has an acquaintance with deep sea fisheries, for he assisted Mr. Green in one of his deep sea surveys.
  Other Members rose to put questions.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been fully answered.

  PROSECUTIONS FOR TRESPASS AT MALLARANNY.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Mallaranny, county Mayo, are put to inconvenience and expense owing to the conduct of the police in summoning them for allowing their donkeys and goats to wander on the public road; that these people have the right to graze on the adjoining mountain, for which they pay a rent, and that the mountain is not fenced in from the public road; and would he see that, pending the proper fencing of the mountain by the landlord, the inhabitants are saved the expense of repeated prosecutions by the police.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There have been eleven prosecutions at Mallaranny since the 1st January last for the offence mentioned, and fines amounting to 12s., with costs, have been imposed. Cultivated land lies adjacent to the road, and is fenced; the grazing mountain is at the other side of this land. The prosecutions were instituted in respect of offences committed on the fenced portion of the road.

  TAWIN WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the people living in the village of Tawin, near Oranmore, in the South Galway Parliamentary Division, amounting to close on ninety families, are in need of water; that an application, supported by the parish priest, the medical officer of health, and other residents of Tawin and district, was presented to the Rural District Council of Galway asking that a pump should be constructed in the village, and, seeing that this request was refused, whether he will state what steps he will direct the Local Government Board to take to prevent an outbreak of fever in the neighbourhood owing to the comparative absence of a fresh water supply.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board has been in correspondence
  568
  with the district council in this matter, but so far the council has taken no action. The Board has no power to take any steps with the view of compelling the council to provide a water supply unless it receives a formal complaint under Section 15 of the Public Health Act, 1896, from the ratepayers. If such a complaint be made to the Board it will receive immediate attention.

  DINGLE BAY FISHERY.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 22nd May, 1901, a steam trawler was detected four miles inside the prohibited line in Dingle Bay, name and number being "Goldfinder, G.Y. 526," and that the fisherman who saw this vessel reported the matter to the chief coastguard, asking at the same time that the owner be prosecuted; and, seeing that under existing laws no prosecutions could be entered against such offending vessels except they are boarded by coastguards, whether he will take steps immediately to alter the law so as to enable prosecutions to be made in such cases as that described.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A Bill is now before Parliament which, in the event of its becoming law, will strengthen the hands of the responsible authorities in suppressing illegal steam trawling.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Has the gunboat any orders to assist in preventing illegal trawling?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That does not arise out of the question. But I may say that the authorities have no power under the existing law to make the owners amenable.

  FORESTRY IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if it is the intention of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to take up the work of reafforestation, and whether he can state if a qualified official and special Committee will be appointed, and what amount of money is available for the

  569
  purpose, or if it is intended to obtain a special grant from the Treasury.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have already stated that the Department hopes, in due time, to take up the work of reafforestation in conjunction with county councils. The councils are empowered to make provision for tree-planting operations and the necessary expert advice in the schemes they are promoting under the Act. These schemes, if approved, will be subsidised by the Department out of the fund at its disposal. It is not intended to obtain a special grant from the Treasury, as suggested.

  GLENGARIFF NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why it is that the teacher of Glengariff National School, Roll No. 2,379, District 58, has not yet been paid results for Irish taught as an extra, though the annual examination was held in July, 1900; and will he explain why no answer has been sent to the letter written by the managers to the Education Office complaining of this delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that payment of the grant referred to has been made, and that the reasons for the delay in payment have been explained to the manager.

  TULLAMORE SESSIONS-CROWN v. PETERSON.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the order made by the county court judge in the case of the Crown v. Peterson, heard at the late quarter sessions for King's County, held at Tullamore, on the 28th ultimo.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to this question. The order made by the judge was to the effect that the case should be adjourned to the next quarter sessions, the defendant being
  570
  admitted to bail in his own recognisances. It is not proposed to lay a copy of the order on the Table of the House,

  BELFAST DISTURBANCES—MR. TREW'S SPEECHES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police in Belfast have been in the habit of taking shorthand notes, or any notes, of the speeches inciting to disorder that have been delivered for a long time past every Sunday at the Custom House by a man named Trew; and, if so, whether he has any objection to place the reports of those speeches on the Table of the House.
  MR. ATKINSON: At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this question. Notes in shorthand, or longhand, have been taken for some time past of the speeches made by Mr. Trew; I cannot, however, admit the accuracy of the description applied to these speeches in the question, though, no doubt, they were in many instances reprehensible in character. The reports of the speeches are confidential documents, and it would be contrary to practice to lay them on the Table of the House
  MR. FLYNN: In what way were they reprehensible if they did not incite to disorder?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the South Tipperary and other county councils have passed resolutions urging them to have the previsions of the Local Government Provisional Order Bill put in force from the 30th September next so as to enable them to give practical effect to the said provisions in the coming year; and whether he can promise to be able to comply with the expressed request of those councils.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Provisional Order fixes the 1st April next as the date

  571
  on which it is to come into operation, that date being the beginning of a new financial year. This date was fixed after consultation with the several county and district councils affected, and current rates have been struck with regard to the liabilities under existing contracts which will expire on that date. For these and other reasons, which it is impossible to state in detail in answer to a question, the suggestion of the hon. Member cannot be adopted.

  DUBLIN FOUR COURTS—TAXING MASTERS' SALARIES.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the salaries of the taxing masters engaged in the Four Courts, Dublin; what are the hours during which they should attend for the transaction of business; and whether it is competent for one of them to strike out cases to leave the court, and thereby put parties interested to inconvenience.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The salary of each of the taxing masters is £1,000 a year. The public business of the department extends from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. The taxing masters do not strike out cases in order to leave the court. They occasionally adjourn cases owing to the non-attendance of the parties or the non-production of vouchers.

  BALLINTOGHER RAILWAY STATION.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the town of Ballintogher, county Sligo, on the line of the Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern Counties Railway, is at present only accommodated with a flag station, to the inconvenience of the people, merchants, and traders of that town and also the cattle dealers who frequent the fairs held there; and, seeing that this company were bound by the original power granted them by Parliament to erect a passenger and goods station at Ballintogher, whether he can take any steps to induce the company to fulfil their promise by having a station erected.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The company state that there is a suitable passenger platform station with every accommodation at this place. It does not appear that they are under any statutory obligation to construct such a station as the hon. Member suggests, and the company allege that the traffic would not warrant the necessary expenditure.
  *MR. O'DOWD: If I satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that the company are under such statutory obligation, will the matter be reconsidered?
  [No answer was returned.]

  BALLINTOGHER POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that at present there is only one daily mail delivery in the town of Ballintogher, county Sligo; that the mails are conveyed from Cullooney by road, arriving at 10 a.m., although a morning mail train from Sligo passes some hours earlier by Ballintogher, and delivers mails along the route at the various towns and villages, performing the same duty on its return at 8.15 p.m.; and will he institute inquiries, with the view of having the same facilities accorded Ballintogher as are enjoyed by smaller towns on the same route of railway
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General will cause inquiries to be made with the view of ascertaining whether it is practicable to afford increased postal facilities at Ballintogher, county Sligo, and the hon. Member shall be informed of the result as soon as possible.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Queen Anne's Bounty.—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed 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,

573
do meet in Committee Room A, upon Thursday, at half-past Two o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Lords' Message [this day], relating to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee, considered, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords' Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to lunatics in Ireland." Lunacy (Ireland) Bill [Lords].

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—MORTALITY IN CAMPS OF DETENTION.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, Member for the Carnarvon District, 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, namely, "the condition of the camps of detention in South Africa, and the alarming rate of mortality amongst the women and children detained there"; 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. LLOYD-GEORGE: After the answer which the Secretary of State has given this afternoon, I do not think that any apology is necessary for this motion. About three weeks ago the hon. Member for East Mayo and myself called attention to this subject, but the facts which have been revealed since showed that we considerably understated the case at that time. On 2nd May the right hon. Gentleman said that in the Transvaal there were 284 deaths from 1st January, and on 7th May he said that the deaths in the Orange River Colony camps since February had been 41 men, 80 women,
574
and 261 children. The answer given to-day proves that, so far from this being the result of temporary conditions, it is growing worse. The deaths in these camps in the Transvaal in a single month were 336—that is a mortality rate, according to the rough computation I have made, of 120 per thousand. For the sake of the credit and good name of this country something should be done to put an end to this condition of things, which is going from bad to worse. A newspaper published last week the details of mortality in one camp. Full particulars were given, including the names of those who had died; a question was based on them, and the right hon. Gentleman consented to ask Lord Kitchener as to the facts. We are constantly hearing of the calumnies of the pro-Boer press. But it is not for hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about calumnies in view of those recently circulated by their own press. Lord Kitchener, it turns out, confirmed every figure of the Return which had been published in the newspaper, and admitted that the death-rate in this one camp had been 450 per thousand. A deputation went out to these camps from this country. One was a former Member of this House—Mr. Joshua Rowntree—and everyone who knows him will be convinced of the accuracy of every statement he makes. His word is as good as his oath. An English lady went out also. She was permitted to go as far as Bloemfontein; but Mr. Rowntree was not permitted to go beyond Cape Town, though a great deal of persuasion was brought to bear on Sir Alfred Milner, as he then was. No doubt what has happened since in these camps and elsewhere has entitled him to his peerage. What has he done? He has allowed one lady to proceed as far as Bloemfontein, but no farther. We now know the reason why no one is permitted to proceed beyond Bloemfontein. The facts revealed by the right hon. Gentleman, which have come straight from Lord Kitchener, show that there was a state of things at Johannesburg which the Government were afraid to exhibit. This lady has made some reports as to what was taking place in the best of these camps—the best equipped and the longest established—and they

575
are sufficiently deplorable. These were camps, not of fighting men, every one of whom would pass a physical test, but of women, many of whom were in a weak condition, and of children. Food, insufficient; such as was supplied, bad; the women herded together, sometimes twelve in a tent; tents leaking; clothes saturated; not much clothing allowed; little children half starved; the food they had, bad; their clothes soaked through with rain and dew. What marvel is it that the right hon. Gentleman has to tell us this tale of hundreds of children dying? [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Another Weyler.] The quantity of the food is less—I carefully compared it—than the amount allowed in this country to criminals under hard labour. Here is the official Report of the medical officer in this very camp about which we are inquiring to-day—
"Examined samples of the mealies, and of the sugar used. Sample one: mouldy and contains mite; unfit for human consumption."
This is given to little children.
"Sample 2: contains mite, but I could not discover any living mite; it is very dangerous as human food. Sample 3: a moist sample of brown sugar; smells somewhat sour, but with microscope could not find ferment or other foreign matter, except water; the sugar is unfit for the use of young children."
Until recently there were two scales in these camps. The full scale for children was—flour and meal, half a pound; meat, half a pound; milk, quarter of a tin; and so on. But this is for children under six years of age. If relatives on commando, no flour; and only one-third of the quantity of meat given to other children. Little children under six years of age to have no flour, one-third the quantity of milk, and no meat at all on five days a week, because their relatives are on commando! [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Generous England!] When this statement was first made the right hon. Gentleman denied it very violently, and it is to his credit that he did so, for he did not believe it possible that such inhumanity could be committed by anybody in authority. The warmth of his indignation is creditable to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is still more creditable that when he discovered that it was a fact he stopped at any rate that part of the transaction.
576
That the state of things with regard to the clothing is very bad is proved by the appeal which has been made to America by the wife of the Military Governor at Pretoria to raise funds—
"for the purpose of providing warm clothing for the Boer women and children in the refugee camps in South Africa, many of whom are totally destitute, and unable to provide against the cold weather which is now setting in."
Then she goes on to say—
"It is in the name of little children who are living in open tents, without fires, and possessing only the scantiest clothing, that I ask for help."
An appeal has to be sent by the wife of the Military Governor of Johannesburg; to America to provide for the women and children we have taken under our protection.
This, Sir, is the idea of bringing a great war to a sucessful issue. We are told that war is war, and that, after all, these are the necessary consequences of a state of war. I do not think that is so. We know perfectly well that this is the result of a deliberate policy. I cannot challenge that policy at the present moment, and I do not propose to do so. I say that this is the result of a deliberate and settled policy. It is not a thing which has been done in twenty-four hours, for it has taken months and months to do it. The military authorities knew perfectly well it was to be done, and they had ample time to provide for it. They started clearing the country about six months ago, and it is disgraceful that five or six months after that children should be dying at the rate of hundreds per month in the different camps. But let me point this out to the House. The rate of mortality among children—and I think this is the most disgraceful fact in the whole situation—is higher than that amongst the soldiers who have braved all the risks of the field. The mortality amongst our own troops is something like thirty-six per thousand. When the epidemic was at its height in Bloemfontein the death rate was fifty-two per thousand. Even taking the argument that war is war, and that Women and children should not be altogether exempt from its dangers, it is unfair to class the mortality of soldiers in the field with that of women and children.

577
But while the rate of mortality amongst the soldiers in the field is fifty-two per thousand, the mortality amongst the women and children in these camps is 450 per thousand, and we have no right to put the women and children in this position. What is the assumption of the right hon. Gentleman? He says that it is by voluntary submission on the part of these women and children that they are refugees, and that they sought our protection. If they are seeking our protection, then we are ill requiting their confidence. They are British subjects, and they are voluntarily British subjects. They came voluntarily to seek the protection of the British flag, and how do we treat them? Why, we half starve them. We give them bad food, no shelter, we clothe them badly, their houses are burned, and their stock taken away. This is how you treat those who have voluntarily submitted to us. This is the first object lesson for them under British rule.
MR. NOLAN: We know all about that in Ireland. [Ministerial laughter.]
MR. CULLINAN: Yes, it is common in Ireland; laugh at it if you like.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman says they sought our protection. Protection against whom? Is it against their own kith and kin? Is it against the natives? Is there a single case recorded where the natives have attacked these poor women and children out on the veldt? No, but they have been driven and compelled to come in. I have got case after case which I might quote to the House where they were compelled to come in—cases where the husband never fought against us, and cases where the husbands are now on commando. There were no charges against the women, and there could be none against the poor little children, but they were compelled to come into these camps. The right hon. Gentleman says he is perfectly willing that they shall go elsewhere if they have anyone to protect them. They have sent petitions in to the military authorities begging to be allowed to
578
leave these camps. [The hon. Member read one of the petitions referred to, and continued:] We are told that these people are voluntary refugees who ask for our protection, but if this is so will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the terms of this petition at Kimberley were refused, and why there was a barbed wire fence surrounding the whole camp? If such a camp is not a prison, it is very like one. All round the camp there are sentries outside. These refugees have asked permission to be allowed to go away, and it has been refused. There are cases in which relatives in Cape Colony have offered to take these women and children under their protection and to pay the expense of conveying them and of keeping them, and even this offer has been refused.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly state, in face of all these facts, that these are voluntary refugees. I say that it is the very worst policy in the world to keep these women and children there in these camps against their will, and under such conditions. It is perfectly impossible, owing to the circumstances, that these children should not suffer. You cannot have children of eighteen months and three or four years old under these tents, in all sorts of weather, without injury to their health. You cannot give them the class of food which you can give to a man in full health and strength, and there certainly ought to be some means of protecting them rather than herding them together in these refugee camps, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do something in this respect. He must know that it is quite impossible under the conditions existing in the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal to do anything to adequately provide for women and children in those parts. There are two camps which are fairly good, I am told, at Port Elizabeth and Norval's Pont, in Cape Colony. There the refugees are within reach of a sympathetic population, and I put it to the Government that it is better to send these people to places where they will have the sympathy of their kinsmen, for it is too much to expect of flesh and blood that they will not sympathise with these refugees. Is it not better that they should occupy themselves and exhaust,

579
as it were, their sympathy upon providing for the women and children of the men in the field, and thus relieve us of the anxiety and the burden, and at the same time occupy themselves with work of this character? Would this not be infinitely better than herding these women and children together in camps in the Orange Free State, from which place all kinds of reports are coming with regard to their condition and treatment, which have given rise to a state of things approximating to rebellion? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman as a matter of policy that this would be infinitely better. I could give cases, if time permitted, showing what has been done in these camps. Some of these women are the wives of well-to-do farmers whose husbands are on commando. Some of their husbands are in prison, and some of them are curious comments on the reports we get of great captures. In one case the husband is in prison, and he is an old man of something between seventy or eighty years of age, and subject to epileptic fits. This old man never fought at all, and he was never on commando, but he was arrested and sent to prison, and reported as one of our great captures. What an absurd thing it is to do things of that sort. I have case after case of women in these camps whose husbands have been sent to Ceylon, Green Point, or St. Helena as prisoners of war, and who never fought at all against us. They include old men between seventy and eighty years of age, and the women are thrown on our hands while these men are kept as prisoners of war. The whole country is disturbed and denuded in this way, and that is the state of things with which we are confronted. I hear it stated very often that to feed these women and children at all as long as their husbands are fighting against us is an illustration of our generosity. Really, let us look at the circumstances. We set to work clearing the country. I have one case here where the first thing we did was to take over the whole of the cattle in stock from the farm. Then we destroyed every bag of mealies, and afterwards fired the house, burning the furniture and everything else in it. Thus we deprive these poor women and children
580
of everything, and then we take them to the camps. Is it really suggested, under these conditions, when you deprive these women and children of the last crust, that it is an instance of great generosity on our part that we herd them together into camps, giving them food of this character, and keeping them in such a state that hundreds of children die off every month? To put that forward as an illustration of our magnanimity is to show that we have not grasped the situation at all. After what we have done we are bound to keep these women and children.
I say that this policy which has been adopted is a perfectly novel method of warfare. It is all very well to say that we are simply doing what other countries have done before us. The only precedent for what we have done that I know of is that of Spain and Cuba before the American occupation. We are following that precedent, and President M'Kinley in his appeal to the American people described the system pursued in Cuba in terms which are identical with the system we are pursuing in South Africa, and he gave an accurate description of what the condition of things would necessarily be. This is what is going on. We cleared the country and denuded it, and we left nothing for these poor women and children to live upon. We herded them together in camps, and, after doing all this, I say that it is our bounden duty to keep them. I should be very sorry to make this a mere party question. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, why should it be a party question? Surely the protection and feeding of children who are brought under our protection, and who are our fellow-subjects according to our own theory, ought not to be a party question. It has nothing to do with the origin of the war or the policy of the war. Assuming the policy of the war to be perfectly right, assuming it to be a perfectly just and necessary war, surely it does not follow that we ought to pursue a policy of extermination against children in South Africa. The worst of this method of proceeding is that the burden of it is falling not upon the men on the field, but upon the weak and innocent who are outside.

581
Why should the children be punished? Assume that President Kruger and his counsellors, assume that the Volksraad and the leaders of the people there, and all the men in the commandoes, are responsible for all this business in Africa, does it follow that these children should be punished for the sins of their fathers? I really would appeal to the humanity of the House, and I would appeal to policy in this matter.
I cannot discuss the policy of the reconcentrado camps, but let us take it for granted that it is a wise step to form these camps; would it not have been better to give more time to provide more shelter and to see that there was better food, more of it, more suitable food, and plenty of clothing? What will happen as the result of all this mortality among the children? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the one thing to do was to finish the war. It is not so. If once we have annexed this country we want to make loyal British subjects of the people. Is this the way to do it? Brave men will forget injuries to themselves much more readily than they will insults, indignities, and wrongs to their women and children. I have looked through a mass of evidence given by those poor women in the camps, and one and all have indicated that there was great readiness amongst the well-to do people, especially in the Orange Free State, to submit to British rule. There were a good many of them who felt that they had made their protest, and they would have accepted it. There is one case given of a man of English blood. A cousin of his fought at Magersfontein on the other side. I believe he is in the Black Watch. That man had been a burgher in the Orange River Colony. A good many of the burghers there and in the Transvaal are of British blood. He was prepared to submit. On coming home to Jacobsdaal, what did he find there? He found his home had been burned by the British. There was a fight going on at Jacobsdaal. The wife did not take part in it. Her husband was with the commando. They burned her out of her home and left her with her little children there. After a fortnight she was taken to some camp. The husband found his home a blackened ruin, and his children
582
beggared. He said, "I came home to submit; but now, never." Hon. Members can understand this better when they are thinking of Englishmen. Is not that what you would expect from an Englishman? He comes home and finds this condition of things for no harm that he has done. He was bound as a loyal subject of the State to fight. He did his best as a brave man, and having done his best he was prepared to surrender.
*MR. SPEAKER: This is a matter that cannot be discussed on the motion now before the House. The hon. Member obtained leave to discuss the condition of the camps of detention in South Africa and the alarming rate of mortality among women and children contained therein. I think references to how their presence in camps came about cannot be made. The hon. Member cannot discuss cases of farm burning or the way in which the war is being carried on.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is one of the cases in a refugee camp.
*MR. SPEAKER: That reason would involve the discussion probably of a great deal of the war.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I bow at once to your ruling. I give that as an illustration, and what I want to point out is that this is the very worst policy we can possibly pursue. It is our interest to treat women and children well. The men are our enemies. We are fighting them, but we are bound to fight them according to the rules of civilised nations, and by every rule of every civilised nation it is recognised that women and children are non-combatants. We are bound to treat them as neutrals, whatever their feelings and whatever their sympathies, and, of course, their sympathies must be with their own people. We are bound to treat them in the best possible way. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, when I quote this case, that he is going about the settlement of this question in the very worst way. When I say "him," I take him

583
as the Minister responsible for this state of things. I would not imagine for a moment that he is directly and personally responsible for the condition of affairs in South Africa. When children are being treated in this way and dying, we are simply ranging the deepest passions of the human heart against British rule in Africa. The love of men for their children, for their home, for their country, and for humanity—we are ranging all these passions against settled government under the British flag in Africa. It will always be remembered that this is the way British rule started there, and that this is the method by which it was brought about. I will not talk about the probabilities of risings in the future, but if you want to provide material for them it is to be found in the condition of these camps. I am making no attack upon the troops or the officers in the field, or Lord Kitchener, whose hands are full. This is a question of policy. It is a question the right hon. Gentleman ought to take upon himself. This policy has desolated the country. It has left these poor people beggared. They have come and sought the protection of the British flag, and I say it ought not to be dishonoured by allowing women and children to starve in such places.
*MR. JOHN ELLIS: I rise to second the motion which has been made, and in doing so I would say that a motion for the adjournment of the House is not a very convenient way of discussing this or any other question. But as matters stand it is the only method open to us. It has been my lot during this session to ask a large number of questions with respect to these camps, and I can assure anyone who does me the honour to listen to me that my sole and single object in asking these questions has been to get at the truth. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who has shown anxiety to answer to the full those questions according to the information in his possession, will find any fault with questions on this matter. Indeed, I shall be very much surprised if he finds any fault with this motion for adjournment, because
584
if he has a case we are giving him an opportunity of placing it before the House. The only fault I have to find with the right hon. Gentleman is that he has not insisted upon those responsible in South Africa giving him, a little earlier, full and accurate information. The House is, indeed, discussing a very grave and serious matter. The figures read to us this afternoon prove that. If I mistake not, there are not far short of 60,000 of those whom the Government call our fellow subjects interned in these camps, for the most part surrounded by barbed wire fences, with British sentries walking found, and, for the most part, unable to get out, a large majority of them being women and children. There is no greater delusion in the mind of any man than to apply the term "refugee" to these camps. They are not refugee camps. They are camps of concentration, formed by the military as the result of military operations in the field. The right hon. Gentleman ventured to say earlier in the session that the people in these camps were not prisoners of war, and that those who came might go. These are his words. He never gave the House more inaccurate information than that. When a camp was formed in Cape Colony Mr. Sauer, who has been one of the Ministers of the Crown a good many times in Cape Colony, and probably will be again, did his best to get from the camp those who had plenty of persons outside the camp in good position who were willing to take them and treat them as their guests. I have his permission to read this letter. He says—
"Permission to leave the camp is absolutely refused. Shortly after the women taken to Port Elizabeth were placed in camp guarded by armed soldiers, I applied for the release of a number of these women whom friends and relations in Cape Colony had offered to take care of and provide for. I asked the Attorney General (Innes) to lay the request before the military. He did so, but the request was not granted."
My information regarding these camps is derived from personal interviews with people who have come home, more especially my relative Mr. Rowntree, formerly Member of this House for Scarborough, who went out at my request in December last and returned

585
home in April. The idea that these people are inside these camps at their own request is an absolute and entire fallacy. It arises from the military devastation of the country. Even Sir Alfred Milner—now Lord Milner—I was glad to see, in a despatch which was more of a leading article than a despatch as it contained more argument than information, said—
"I am glad to think that this measure "
—that is, the devastation of the country—
"is very seldom, if ever, resorted to."
But Lord Kitchener told the people whom he called together in the market square at Pretoria that—
"it is essential that the country should be cleared; our forces are compelled to denude the country of everything movable."
I am not going to discuss the policy at the moment, but merely to state the facts. How do these people reach the camps? The pictures drawn by those who have shared in the journeys to and the life in these camps are terrible. Hundreds and thousands of women and children sat in open trucks for twenty-four, forty-eight, and even seventy-two hours—pent up like the passengers in the old third-class carriages in this country which men of my age can remember forty-five years ago. They were not allowed to leave these trucks. At more than one station what happened when these trains came in? The children were wailing—not crying; they had lost the power to cry; they were wailing with hunger. Their mothers were trying to leave the train to get provisions for them, but they were forced back into the trucks at the point of British bayonets. The very soldiers were so heart-broken and grieved by what they saw that they distributed their own rations among the women and children—a tribute to the humanity of the British soldier, a humanity which I acknowledge is exhibited on those benches opposite as fully as on these in many instances. Do not think I am making this, a political matter. It is too high and sacred to be dragged into politics. These trains arrived after these long journeys at the camps. I will not trouble the House with many quotations, but I must give
586
one from Mr. Rowntree, What he says is this—
"In one tent news was brought us that more prisoners were coming."
They do not talk there about refugees.
"Their quick eyes caught them detraining when I could distinguish nothing at all."
I am told that the eyesight of these Boers is of two miles greater radius than that of the British soldiers.
"A few soldiers first, who looked good-natured and as if they did not greatly relish their work; then a long procession, broken often into clumps. They were chiefly mothers and children, many babies in arms, many clutching at gown or hand. Most of them were weary, sad, and grave, a look of destitution imprinted on faces and clothing alike. All, down to the infants, had some little thing—presumably the most precious and necessary possession—clasped in one hand. A water-bottle, a kettle, a bundle (Small) of clothing, a bag with a few provisions (rare). One lone woman was cherishing a cat. One old woman came along in a ricksha, the rest were all on foot. One little lad of seven or eight was so tired that he laid down twice in the grass and was made to go on. They had no umbrellas against the sun. Their head-dresses were mostly dark voluminous hoods. The general effect was very sombre, and infinitely sad; two or three I saw in tears, and I had to move away by myself for a time."
That picture might be multiplied by the dozen.
The right hon. Gentleman told us expressly the other day that these people were not prisoners of war. They are British subjects in the eyes of the Government. Surely the responsibility on us is great and terrible to see that the conditions of their environment are healthy and decent under the circumstances. What are the actual conditions? You have these vast batches of humanity swept into these camps; and let the House remember that you have among them all sorts and conditions of people. You have what you might have if you swept an area of a few acres of Chelsea or other portions of London—persons who have been accustomed to live—I speak from knowledge—in great luxury, delicate children who have been accustomed to have all their wants supplied, along with persons of considerable poverty, accustomed to endure hardships. I am told, and I believe, that in the majority of the camps the shelter is very deficient

587
indeed. It is deficient both against the South African heat and specially against the South African winter. The overcrowding in some of the tents has been something terrible. If we were not discussing this matter we should be probably discussing the Factory and Workshops Acts Amendment Bill. Now, we have taken the very greatest possible security within the last thirty or forty years that factories and schools should be provided with an adequate number of cubic feet of air. But I have been told by those who have been in these tents that the only description which can be applied to them is that they are like the Black Hole of Calcutta. As to the food, I have gone through the rations, which from the point of view of women and children are not at all satisfactory. As to the differentiation of rations between those whose husbands and fathers have surrendered and those whose relatives are still on commando, I will say that a more diabolical arrangement was never entered into by any civilised nation. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman of being responsible for this. I go further. I acquit the Government. Curiously enough, I do not see the Colonial Secretary present. When we are discussing one of the many fruits of the policy of the Secretary for the Colonies he always absents himself from the House. I acquit the Government of responsibility for what I call this diabolical arrangement, and I was delighted when I heard the right hon. Gentleman get up and say that this thing was at an end. But still the food is insufficient and bad, and the matter requires looking into at once. Then there is the water supply; it has, in many cases, been extremely bad, extremely impure, and extremely insufficient. There have been camps in which for weeks there has not been—I almost half smile when I mention it—a particle of soap, although there are thousands of women and children in these camps. We know what an apparently small matter like that really means. Then in regard to cooking—the means of firing and cooking have been entirely insufficient. The furniture in those tents, the household utensils and implements, have also been deficient. Some of my informants tell me that there were scores and hundreds of women
588
unable to get a needle and thread. Think what that means! I turn to a more serious grievance. Births are taking place in these camps, and there has been insufficient medical attendance in the hour of woman's greatest need. There have been deaths, but I will not dwell upon or emphasise the Returns—the awful Returns of mortality. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will get up and endeavour to show that matters are improving. It may well be so, but let us have the full facts as to mortality month, by month. I ask him to lay on the Table of the House a schedule of the actual deaths in each of these camps. He told me a good many weeks ago that he had inquired for Returns to be presented, to the House. Let us have the actual figures. It would be very easy to place them in the shape of a Return, which I hope he will consent to have laid on the Table of the House. Again, the nursing and the hospital accommodation leave a great deal to be desired. I turn now to what I call the social aspect of the matter. Here are these 60,000 people, more or less, going to rest, but many of them not to bed, every night knowing that they are practically in a prison, and waiting every morning to meet another long, weary day. What provision is there for their occupation? They come into these camps naturally brooding over their wrongs—wrongs with which we can sympathise—wrongs against which we ourselves would fight to the death. What provision is being; made for the education of the children? I am aware that something is being done, but not very much. Again, what provision is made for religious services? We open our proceedings every afternoon with a recognition of our common Christianity. What access has been, allowed to the camps to ministers of religion? What is done on the Sundays for religious services?
I hope, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on these points. This is not a passing matter. These people are there day by day, week after week, month after month, and Heaven alone knows how soon these things will come to an end. I am quite sure there is not a man on the Treasury Bench who will make a prophecy on that. We are

589
responsible in the sight of God and man for these people, who are British subjects. It is pitiful to read the letter of the wife of the British general at Pretoria appealing to the people of the American Republic for help for these women and children. We ought not to have allowed such a letter to be written. All honour to that good woman, but we ought not to have allowed that letter to have gone across the Atlantic when we are voting hundreds of millions sterling for prosecuting this war. But that good woman's heart was wrung at the scenes of misery in the camps. It is a slur upon us, upon the British House of Commons, upon the British Government, that that letter should be necessary. Our honour is concerned. I have endeavoured, and I hope I have succeeded, in avoiding any political asperity in my remarks. I would not have risen to second this motion unless I had, what I venture to term, the humanitarian aspect of the question mainly in my mind. It is on that ground that I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I ask him to give us full information and let us have all the facts and figures; but, above all, I ask him that duly accredited persons from this country, ladies of the type of Miss Florence Nightingale, shall have free access to these camps, and that the British public will be able to send whatever they may desire under proper safeguards. I received this afternoon, and I was very thankful to get it, a letter from a lady now in South Africa who spoke in the highest terms of the facilities which Sir Hely Hutchinson had given her to visit some of these camps. I hope that is the beginning of a new departure, and that in future accredited ladies will not be refused access to these camps. I acknowledge at once the manner in which Sir Hely Hutchinson has acted. The lady in question, by the way, is not of my own political way of thinking. She went out to South Africa not to criticise the Government, but to do what she could to alleviate distress. War is a terrible thing. The people of this country are now finding it out. It may be that among those who do me the honour to listen to me there are some who have suffered family bereavements in this terrible war. Towards all such
590
our sympathies go out. But I would ask, in the name of our common Christianity, that the Government should at once take such steps as will alleviate the sufferings and improve the condition of the women and children in the camps in South Africa.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): I do not suppose that any Member who has listened to the hon. Member who has just sat down doubts for a moment his real and earnest belief in the case which he has put before the House. But the hon. Member for Carnarvon in introducing this question asked very pertinently why this should be a party question. I confess I thought his own action in the matter and the manner in which this subject has been introduced into the House to-night gave some answer to the question which he himself asked. This question is brought before the House as a definite matter of urgent public importance—so urgent that no notice can be given to the Government that such a question is going to be raised—[An HON. MEMBER: Blocking motion]—this, curiously enough, being the third Parliamentary Government night on which a definite matter of urgent public importance has been found to be Drought forward to delay the progress of public business. I submit that under those circumstances there does seem tome to have been a lack of precaution in avoiding the element of party which the hon. Member himself might on reconsideration discover in his own motion. When I speak of notice I say again, as I have said before in this House, that I am ready at all times to answer for any subject connected with the war for which Lord Kitchener or the authorities can be called in question; but if the House of Commons desires to have anything except a partial and a hurried consideration, on the spur of the moment, of the matters brought before us—brought before us by elaborate speeches with long; notes by hon. Members opposite—if the object is not to snatch an argument unawares or to snatch a division unawares,

591
then there can he no objection, upon a matter of great public importance, to giving some notice to the Government of intention to bring it forward. And there is another point upon which I must dwell for one moment. If these questions are to be brought forward from a purely humanitarian and patriotic standpoint, I think they ought not to be accompanied by these attacks which were made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon upon the general humanity with which the war has been carried on. I resent these attacks. I resent them because the mistakes of the war in that respect have been an excess of confidence in the advantage which humanity would give us in dealing with the Boers throughout the campaign. Lord Roberts began by making what has since been found to be a great blunder—that was, by allowing Boers on parole in the Orange Free State to go hack to their farms. That piece of humanity has, no doubt, cost us a considerable prolongation of the war. These men went back to their farms, and they did not keep their parole. Every farmhouse became a fresh recruiting agency for the enemy, and after the men had gone back on commando the farmhouses occupied by the women became depots from which they got supplies and stores and from which they obtained information of the movements of our troops. It was absolutely necessary to put a stop to those proceedings. It was a necessity which every general would have felt, and which if he had not recognised he would have been greatly wanting in his duty. Then what occurred? Lord Roberts in several instances endeavoured to get the Boer generals to look after their own women and children. If they had been willing, as they were able, when they retired before us—they had the line of railway—to provide for their women and children, many of those difficulties which are now complained of would never have occurred; but they persistently threw on us the charge of looking after their women and children; they traded on our humanity in the matter.
*MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid I must stop the right hon. Gentleman when he goes into the military policy
592
which led to these women and children being in the camps. The question for discussion is the condition of the camps and the treatment of the women and children there.
MR. BRODRICK: Certainly, Sir, I desire to speak entirely within the limits of your ruling; but my desire is to show that a large number of those individuals who are now in the camps would not be there if we could have induced the enemy to recognise their own responsibilities in the matter. I would say that a large number of these refugees are now in camp, not owing to any wish of the Government, but owing to the action of their own friends. Then we have gone a step further, and we have in camp a certain number who have come voluntarily, because they wanted food and shelter, and we have a certain number who are there because the country had to be cleared. All those put upon us a burden which it was hoped by the enemy we should not be able to bear, but which we are endeavouring to bear. If hon. Members could realise what it is in a country like this, with every convenience, to keep 63,000 persons properly sheltered and fed, even with every opportunity and every source of supply, they would have some conception of what the difficulty is in a country fed by single lines of railway, along which most of the food has to be brought from the base, and where there are 250,000 soldiers whom it is our first duty to supply When I am told that the case of these individuals is not what we should wish it to be, I entirely agree. It cannot be so, and it will not be so. When you have a country in a state of war you will have to hear of sufferings you do not like to hear of. So you would if you went into our own camps to-night and saw what men who are on trek are enduring at this moment, in spite of every provision we have there and every arrangement we can make for them. The only question between the House and the Government can be if you challenge our policy in keeping these women in camp. Then we are willing to answer for it, for we know well that from the moment we begin to scatter these people broadcast throughout the country one of two things will happen—either a considerable

593
number of persons will starve, and there will be material for diatribes even more violent than those we have heard in this House, or you will have again those difficulties to encounter of your own troops finding themselves at every moment coming across depots made for the enemy, leading without doubt to the prolongation of the war. We are not willing to face either of these contingencies. It is urged that we have not done sufficient to make these camps sanitary, and to preserve human life. I deny it altogether. It is said that they are going from bad to worse. Those who have been out there, and who have come to see me since they came back, having gone out there to distribute goods and luxuries beyond actual necessaries among the women and children in the camps, have, I think, in every single case, assured me that things, so far from going from bad to worse, have been steadily ameliorating.
The camps were begun at a peculiarly unfortunate time. In the month of January, shortly after they were established, owing to the incursion of De Wet into Cape Colony, which resulted in the lines being cut in the rear, there was the greatest difficulty both in supplying the troops and supplying the camps; but since they have been established every attempt has been made to get up shelter, to supply sanitary conveniences, to see that proper medical appliances are within their reach. As I told the hon. Member this afternoon, in the camp of Johannesburg there has been undoubtedly a severe epidemic. I will go further. I say that a great deal of that epidemic is, so far as my information goes, due to the conduct, unluckily, of the Boer women themselves who are there. They find it very difficult to make up their minds to accept the ordinary medical arrangements for separation and the ordinary precautions which are taken against an epidemic of that character. They will not accept the rule as to dieting patients. An instance has come to my knowledge to-day in a private letter. A woman who had a child suffering from dysentery in the camp gave that child—although proper food was there and was ordered by the doctor—a raw carrot, and the child died in four hours. That is only one of many instances in
594
which it has been found impossible to get women who have not been accustomed to life in camp to recognise that the first law for the preservation of life and health, when an epidemic is raging, is to obey the precautions the doctor enjoins. With regard to the other camps, I have to complain a little that this motion is put forward so hurriedly. It was only on Friday that I received notice that a question on the subject was to be asked, and I have not yet received from Lord Kitchener the most recent statistics as to the mortality during the month of May. These I hope to receive within the next two or three days. But, generally speaking, our principle has been to have the food which is given examined. There may, and there must, be instances over so large an area when the food cannot always be given in the best condition, but, generally speaking, it is good and sound. I have heard it said this evening that the food is the food of criminals. It is the food that is given to the British soldier. You cannot give luxurious food under circumstances such as prevail at this moment in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. The hon. Member asked me a question as to religious ministrations in these camps, and I specially inquired into that matter. There has been an attempt in each camp to provide schools of instruction, and I understand from Lord Kitchener that arrangements have been made for religious ministrations. Attempts have been made to set up various forms of labour in order to occupy the inmates of the camps, and many attempts have been made to provide amusements, so as to prevent the inmates from suffering from dejection and despondency. But when the hon. Member asks that there should be free access to the camps, we enter on a different category. The opinion of Lord Kitchener, which is shared by Lord Milner and by His Majesty's Government, is that it is highly desirable that in each locality there should be a local committee formed, on which there might be Dutch representatives and ministers of religion, and which, in conjunction with the commandant, will have the opportunity of organising to some extent amusements or other means of occupation in the camps. The committee will also be able to distribute such things as may be sent

595
out from this country or given by charitable people for the relief of inmates. Local effort of that kind has the entire concurrence of the Government. But if by free access from here is meant the sending out of individuals who, however little they may desire it, are to become centres of agitation and trouble, then we are opposed to that form of intervention. We do not want the men who have been spreading in Cape Colony blood-curdling pamphlets, highly-coloured statements, and untrue narratives, which have accentuated the bitterness of the war, to intervene in order to make still more difficult a difficult situation. Through these local committees philanthropy will have full scope; and upon this point the hon. Gentleman has made a personal appeal to me and to the Government not to be backward in taking up a fresh position. Our position throughout the matter has been this.
*MR. JOHN ELLIS: I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman. I did not ask the Government to take up a fresh position; that would be a political matter, and I did not deal with the policy of the Government in this matter.
MR. BRODRICK: I understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it was a matter of policy; that we ought to intervene.
*MR. JOHN ELLIS: I did not say a word about the policy.
MR. BRODRICK: I only spoke from recollection, but—
*MR. JOHN ELLIS: I have my own opinion as to the policy of the Government in the matter, but I did not state it.
MR. BRODRICK: We cannot scatter these individuals over the colony again. We are in communication with Lord Kitchener as to those who can find homes for themselves where they can be maintained. To that extent we shall be only too glad to rid ourselves of the responsibility of looking after them. We cannot undertake that life in the camps shall be otherwise than simply healthful, as far as we can secure that, and we shall also, as far as we can, surround them with
596
proper medical and other attentions. But the one thing which can help theses camps is the cessation of the war.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: It rests with you.
MR. BRODRICK: The cessation of the war will not be accelerated by speeches such as were made by the hon. Member who has just interrupted me, who has given every encouragement—
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Pooh!
MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member may not have the manners I should desire, and he is not chary of what he says himself either about his opponents-or about British soldiers in the field.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to prove any inaccuracy except—[Laughter.] Everything I said was true, and was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, except that it was of the Kaffrarians and Brabant's Horse, and not of the Australian Horse.
MR. BRODRICK: I do not wish to pursue the subject, but before I leave it I desire to say that the hon. Member charged a body of men with mutiny who had never mutinied.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I claim the right to reply to that statement, and to point out that that was an error, which I corrected before the right hon. Gentleman. I apologised to the Australians, and named the persons who were responsible.
*THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, who had taken the Chair during the temporary absence of the Speaker): I fear that the discussion is rather disorderly.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Then he ought not to have begun it.
*THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was the hon. Member himself who first interrupted the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. BRODRICK: My past experience of the hon. Member teaches me that he

597
is very little careful of what he says about others. The hon. Member interrupts me, and I think I am entitled to reply to what he says. I wish hon. Members would be a little more careful in the language which they use, for expressions used in this House come back to me from South Africa by every mail. Our one desire is that there may be restored that condition of peace in the Transvaal which will enable these women to go back to their homes. [An HON. MEMBER: Never, never!] We will do what we can to preserve them from unnecessary suffering, whether they come to us of their own accord, or through our exercise of force, or through the neglect of their own people. More than that we cannot say. I believe there is a universal feeling among those who have gone out that the desire of the commandants of the camps is to exercise all the humanity they can. But humanity has its limits in this one respect. We are not going, either by releasing these people in large numbers or by any sign of faltering in our policy, which is to pursue this war to its conclusion, to hang a burden on the backs of the military authorities in South Africa, or to take any other step which would lead to the prolongation of the war.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman made a complaint, at the beginning of his speech, of the way in which this matter has been brought before the House, and he complained especially that there had been no opportunity for him to prepare the facts for the argument he would have to use. There was an interjection at that point which I think showed that there was perfect justification for the action of my hon. friend in not giving any public, or even semi-public, notice of his intention. The justification is simply this; that if any such notice had been given, there would have been immediately put down a "blocking" notice, which would have prevented this motion from being brought forward.
MR. BRODRICK: Notice might have been given me this morning.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has only to
598
look at the Notice Paper and he will see there are three subjects—one of them of very small importance, but the other two of very large importance—which the House of Commons is absolutely debarred from discussing by notices of motion so transparent in their purpose, and so shadowy and useless in themselves, that they ought not to be allowed to remain for that purpose on the Notice Paper any longer. There is the question of farm burning. No one can say a word upon it, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigtonshire wishes to call the attention of the House to the Return on farm-burning in South Africa, and to move a resolution. There is the question of press censorship, and the nature of the information which is vouchsafed to the people of this country with regard to all that is being done in their name; but the hon. Member for North Ayrshire is anxious to call the attention of the House, at some unknown distant date, to the communication of news from South Africa and to the exercise of the censorship, and to move a resolution. The other day a comparatively trifling incident occurred. Two Boer prisoners attempted to escape, were caught, tried, and punished. That may have been right or wrong—I am not speaking as to that now—but immediately the conscience or the interest of the hon. Member for a division of Sussex is so exercised that he also wishes to call the attention of the House to this incident, and to move a resolution. Why, Sir, the farce is transparent. I wonder how long the House of Commons is going to endure this. It may, perhaps, excite some strange feeling amongst us to know that these camps of Boer women and children are surrounded by fences of barbed wire, but there is a barbed wire fence around the House of Commons, which prevents us exercising the ordinary rights of speech which belong to this Assembly.
So much, Sir, for the motion which has been made. The whole question is two-fold, and I confess, a once, that the part to which my hon. friend confines the attention of the House, although eminently urgent and deserving of attention, cannot, I think, be discussed without reference to the other portion, and that other portion

599
we are precluded from discussing. What I object to is the whole policy of concentration, the whole policy of destroying the homes of women and children, driving them in circumstances of considerable cruelty, certainly of unintentional cruelty, into these camps. Under the very natural and proper ruling of the Speaker we cannot discuss the whole of that side of the question, and what we have, therefore, to speak on is merely the condition of those camps. Now, Sir, I have not seen the report of Mr. Rowntree, long a respected Member of this House, but I am acquainted with the reports of the gallant and plucky lady who went out to South Africa a in order to do what benefit she could to these unfortunate people; and I wish to say this. I am confirmed in my belief in the accuracy of her reports because of their most remarkable fairness. She brings no accusation, and I am sure that none of us would do so—at least, speaking for myself, I have never said a word that would imply cruelty or even indifference on the part of officers or men in the British Army. It is the whole system which they have to carry out that I consider, to use a word which I have already applied to it, barbarous. There are no people in the world who feel that barbarity more than the unfortunate men whose duty it is to enforce that system. But there can be no question that much of what the right hon. Gentleman said is well founded when he assured the House that every effort has been made by the commandants of these camps in most cases to alleviate the sufferings of the unfortunate people entrusted to their care under difficulties of a perfectly overwhelming character. The numbers coming in were so great as to swamp all the preparations that had been made. This lady went to a camp, and after spending a little time there was satisfied that things were a little better. She goes back after a few weeks, and finds that perhaps 2,000 more of these so-called refugees have been brought into the camp and therefore the whole thing is upset, and the difficulties are worse than ever. That is the sort of hopeless task that these unfortunate British officers have put upon them—to undertake to provide the necessaries of life for those unfortunate people.
600
One word I wish to say which I omitted to say, and which is recalled to me by the use of the word "refugee." I believe that two pleas used have very little foundation. The first is that these are refugees who have fled from starvation, and perhaps fear of worse evils, to go into the camps; and the other plea is that they have had to go there or to be taken there in order to escape from the vindictiveness of the native population. I have not seen a single authenticated case of women and children in any farm, however outlying or remote and undefended, suffering anything from the natives. On the contrary—and I do not know whether it has struck hon. Members as it has struck me—all through these many months the natives have stood loyal and closely by the Boers, who have been their nearest neighbours. Nor is that all; at any rate, I have not heard of any case where the women have received anything but the most humane assistance from the natives. There is no doubt at all that the state of things in the camps is perfectly horrible, and I trust that these reports will be published, so that the British people may know the state of things.
After all, what we have to do is to consider what is to be done with these people now that they are there. The right hon. Gentleman says that we cannot break them up and disperse them and have the women starving all over the country. No one proposes that. There are two classes of women. There are those who have relatives and friends to whose houses they could go in Cape Colony, who would receive them and treat them well. When they have asked for that permission it has been refused. There is another class of women who say, "Let me and my children go back to my farm, and, even if there be only scorched walls, I would be able to scrape, with the help of those in the neighbourhood I know, a few vegetables or something to keep us alive. Only take us out of this place in which we are." Surely that, at least, could be done. And with regard to those who must remain, who have been brought there in a ruined and starving condition—with regard to them I am not at all satisfied or disposed to be content with this idea of a local committee which is to

601
look after them. Where are the materials in the greater part of these localities for these local committees? What I would urge upon the Government is to send out a staff of nurses and competent civilian medical men. In some of these camps there is hardly any medical assistance at all, and in others there are only one or two Army doctors. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of Army doctors, but the diseases of women and children are not quite the branch of the profession with which they are most accustomed to deal, and I know that in many cases there has been really no competent medical advice to be obtained on the spot. As to nursing, this gallant lady, of whose report we have been speaking, herself in two or three camps organised a sort of scratch team of nurses of the younger Boer women, and accomplished a great amount of good. What is the objection to sending a certain number of skilled doctors and, above all, of nurses in order to do what is necessary both for the sanitation and the healing of the inhabitants of these camps? The right hon. Gentleman says that we do not want people to go in there to stir up agitation. [Cheers.] Certainly not. The hon. Gentlemen who cheer, therefore, think you cannot find in the United Kingdom a dozen or twenty doctors and perhaps a score or a hundred of nurses who can be trusted to go into these camps without spreading unnecessary political agitation. I think better of both doctors and nurses. I am quite certain that this is the course which humanity dictates, and it is the only course which will convince these unhappy women and children, so far as they can realise the circumstances, that the British people really care for them and desire to save them from unnecessary pain and suffering. The right hon. Gentleman talks of closing the war, of "bringing it to a conclusion." That is the desire of everyone, but the last way to bring it to a conclusion is by doing what has been done for the last two or three months. Will not the view naturally adopted be—of course, I do not suppose for a moment that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government—but are we not open to having it said that because we cannot effectively deal with the men we are trying to get hold of the women? Yes, and that is the view
602
taken by the women of it. They say, "You bring us here, and you think that by inflicting hardships upon us and our children you will induce us to bring pressure to bear upon our husbands." But they answer in the well-known words of Lord Chatham, which have already been quoted to-night, "Never, never, never." Is this the way to train up these people to be kindly, contented, and friendly fellow citizens, imposing upon them sufferings which by a little foresight might have been avoided? The best way of avoiding it would have been to have left them in their own homes, but if they must be deported, surely ample provision should be made beforehand; and as that was not done, let us make up for past remissness. Let the Government send out not only sufficient stores, if they are wanting, but, above all, a number of capable men and women who will teach these people the laws of health, which the right hon. Gentleman says they are inclined to transgress, and thus induce a better state of things than that which has been brought before us.
*MR. C. P. SCOTT: We are told that all these things of which we have heard are part of the terrible realities of war and cannot be avoided; that nothing is being done which cannot be defended or which is contrary to humanity. We are also told that these things may be very dreadful, but if the war is to be brought to an end they are necessary. I think it will be admitted, however, that there are some things which we have not a right to do even in order to shorten somewhat the duration of the war. I do not think we can for a moment admit that women and children ought to be swept up in this way and taken from their homes unless we have some means of providing for them. It cannot be contended that we are justified for any purpose whatever in bringing these women and children into a condition in which they are bound to die or to undergo terrible sufferings. But, even granted that these measures are necessary—which I do not for a moment admit, for I think that even from a military point of view the whole proceedings are a mistake—we have to consider whether the Government are doing their best for these women. I

603
think it is perfectly obvious that in an immense number of cases they are not. We have heard a great deal to-night about the sufferings of these people, but I do not believe that either on this or the other side of the House hon. Members in the least degree realise the extent of the sufferings. I do not believe that any hon. Members can realise what it means for women and children to be living, a dozen of them together, lying on the bare ground, in a little bell tent with the thermometer at 100° or 110°, with torrential rains and morning dews coming through and wetting everything inside. But even supposing we are bound to do this, then the question arises, Are we obliged, having brought the people there, to keep them there? That is a question which I think the Secretary of State for War has not sufficiently considered, and to which he certainly has given no satisfactory answer. We want to know why it is that these people are kept as prisoners in these camps. There have been practically none released. Some months ago there were two or three cases in which certain of the women were allowed to go to their friends. That, however, was stopped, and now we have the state of things that there are some 60,000 women and children, many of whom have friends elsewhere willing to receive them and to pay for their journey to them, kept in our hands as prisoners. I say that this is a disgrace, and if children die and women fall ill it is upon us that the responsibility lies, and upon the fair fame of this country lies the discredit. I hope we may hear more from the Secretary for War on this subject. He has given us a little hope to-night, and we were glad, at any rate, that we have obtained a little good from the debate, and that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to look into this matter for himself. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go a good deal further. We were told at first that the women went into the camps voluntarily as refugees, but it is now admitted that they are prisoners. Some of them tried to run away, but soldiers were sent to bring them back. We are entitled to ask that the women and children who are in the camps against their will, and who have
604
relatives in Cape Colony willing to take them, should be allowed to leave. I am told if the women and children were allowed to do this a great majority of them would be provided for in Cape Colony. Further, we ask that the Secretary of State for War shall not on any consideration whatever add to the already enormous number of these refugees unless he can provide for them in a decent and humane manner, and also that he will, to the utmost of his power, endeavour to find homes for these people, or permit them to find homes for themselves in Cape Colony, where they can be kindly treated and taken care of. Unless these things are done, the responsibility for the terrible mortality that occurs will rest upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. It is all very well to say that it is only measles, but the constitutions of the children are utterly undermined and enfeebled to such an extent that they are unable to resist any illness which may attack them. This is a terrible state of things, and one which the House and the country cannot be satisfied with, and we have a right to appeal to the humanity of the Government to see that a remedy is found.
MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend who has just sat down is, I think, justified at all events to this extent—that the facts to which he has alluded are facts to which the House of Commons ought to attend. The statistics as to the death-rate alone constitute a subject on which we might well spend some time in debate. While, however, I entirely sympathise with my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in his objection to "blocking notices," my sympathy goes out also to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who finds himself plunged into a debate of this kind without any notice. I think it would have been in the interests of the question itself if some intimation, however informal, had been conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman this morning that the topic was going to be discussed, in order that we might have had before us a full statement on what, to my mind, is a very grave subject—namely, the amount of mortality which has taken place in these

605
camps. It is one of the infortunate circumstances connected with the discussion of all topics cognate to the war that they cannot be handled without the importation of a great amount of bias and feeling. With many of the statements made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division probably we all agree. They hate the war; we hate the war. They hate these evils; we hate these evils. They would fain have an end put to the miseries which these unhappy women and children are undergoing; we all desire to see that done as quickly as possible. But I cannot help thinking that no useful purpose is served by bringing such phrases as "even Sir A. Milner" or the word "barbarous" in connection with military operations. These things do not tend to bring the war to an end. What is likely to have that result? Surely the inspiring not only of the Boers in South Africa, but also of the nations on the Continent, with a sense of our desire to be fair, at all events, in these matters. I do not blame people who differ strongly from me with regard to the war, but I cannot think that in discussions on specific matters of this kind it is well to travel over the line even a little and to introduce these controversial questions. It must have the effect of strengthening the attitude of resistance of those opposed to us—if, indeed, that be possible.
The material question at issue is whether a case of neglect has been made out against the Government. If I thought that such a case had been made out, I should, without hesitation, vote for the motion, because a matter which concerns the weak, helpless, and defenceless is one which, above everything else, ought to enlist sympathy in this House. But the conclusion at which I have arrived, as regards not only this matter but many others connected with the war, is that a case has not been made out. There have been many blunders—some on the other side, such, for instance, as the permitting of large numbers of burghers to go on parole to their farms, a course of action which had no good result from any point of view. There have been policies in connection
606
with farm-burning and other matters which enlightened opinion has probably agreed were mistaken. Blunders of that kind have been made, and they always will be made in a great military campaign, because of the want of organisation which it produces. Still, I see nothing to lead me to question the desire of everybody, from the generals in the field to His Majesty's Ministers, to conduct the warlike operations in South Africa with as much humanity and as little cruelty as possible. War is always a horrible and terrible thing—you will never make it otherwise than miserable; but, notwithstanding the many hardships which have resulted, I cannot see that His Majesty's Government have had brought home to them any neglect or oversight in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman told us of certain steps which, I understand, have been taken. He has to deal with a very large number of women and children. We are not in a position to discuss the question of concentration. Concentration is a most disagreeable necessity of war, if a necessity of war it be. But one has to consider whether it is a better or a worse alternative to something else. I cannot discuss the matter now, but before I pronounced against concentration I should like to know what other methods are open. I have listened in vain to the speeches on this side of the House for an alternative suggestion.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Stop the war.
MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend behind me, whose devotion to this cause no one will question, says "Stop the war." A great number of people on this side who wish to see the war stopped think that to stop it in the way that my hon. friend suggests would be the most disastrous thing that could happen. I have never shared the views of my hon. friend upon this matter. I have never had a doubt that the cause of this war was the policy adopted by President Kruger, and I have never had a doubt that the bringing of this war to a satisfactory conclusion can only be accomplished by the present policy of the Government. I think that in saying

607
this I am expressing the views of a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House. [Opposition cries of "Order, order," and Ministerial cheers.] I know that we shall not be allowed to enter into these matters now, but I must emphasise them, because time after time—
MR. LABOUCHERE: Has my hon. friend any right to discuss the opinions entertained on this side of the House in regard to the policy of this war?
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not a right to discuss upon the present motion the opinions on the war held by hon. Members of this House. I understand that the hon. Member only spoke about it for a very few moments, in consequence of an interruption.
MR. PIRIE: It is distinctly out of order.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise to a point of order; otherwise I should not have risen at all. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for my own information, whether in the course of this debate the hon. Gentleman is in order upon this motion in discussing the policy of Mr. Kruger and what led to the war, because, if he is, I shall be inclined to take part in the discussion.
*MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand that the hon. Member was doing anything of the kind. I hope he will not follow any line of argument of that character.
MR. HALDANE: I know that I should have been wholly out of order if I did that, and I had not the smallest intention of doing more than merely saying what I have already stated. I say that this matter has been discussed and colour has been brought into it, and my desire was to make it clear that I do not partake in that colouring.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then why did you bring Kruger in?
MR. HALDANE: I did it to make it perfectly clear that there is a difference between myself and some hon. friends of mine who sit on this side of the House.
MR. PIRIE: The strongest difference.
MR. HALDANE: The question which has been raised, I am aware, relates simply to what has been done in these camps, and not the policy of keeping the refugees there; and if that fact had been observed in the discussion we should have been spared a considerable amount of these interruptions. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that instructions have been given to the military authorities to discontinue some of the practices complained of in these camps. In the first place, I am very glad that the differentiation between the kinds of food, which was a blunder, has been abolished, and I understand that there is now no difference between the food given to the children there, whether they belong to the Boers in the field or to the people who are not in actual warfare. In the second place, I gather that provision is being made for the instruction of the children. I trust that this policy of keeping the women and children in camps is not one which it is necessary to carry on for a long period. It is right that the provision for the instruction of these children is one which should be maintained. In the third place, as regards the question referred to by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, I am not quite sure whether that is satisfactory, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is in sympathy with what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe desires in regard to the religious question, and that steps are being taken in that direction. As regards occupation, provision is being made for the refugees, and local committees have already been formed. Then there is the question of visiting. I cannot help thinking that too much stress is apt to be laid upon the danger of allowing relatives and friends, who may happen to come from other places, access

609
to those whom they know in these camps. I think that, as far as is consistent with our policy—and it is almost impossible for us to judge of the details 6,000 miles away—I should like to see every relaxation made in that direction. As regards sending these unfortunate people back to their homes, I understand the right hon. Gentleman is considering that as a practical matter. It is all very well to say that permission to leave has been refused. I notice that my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon said that Mr. Rowntree—with whom I am personally acquainted, and who is a gentleman as honourable as any to be found in the length and breadth of England—had not been permitted to go to Bloemfontein.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: He never tried to get permission to go to Bloemfontein.
MR. HALDANE: He must have proceeded on mere hearsay in some of these matters.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: It was not so.
MR. HALDANE: It is difficult for such people as Mr. Rowntree to be certain at first hand, and I cannot help thinking that things have not been quite so bad in some particulars. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will develop this policy of endeavouring to make the lives of these people brighter and happier, and of allowing them to return to the homes which may be provided for them as soon as possible.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: These complaints were made by Sir sauer in specific terms.
MR. HALDANE: But Mr. Sauer could not write letters on behalf of the women and children, and what has been alluded to must have been some general proposal. At any rate, now we know that this policy of allowing these people to return to their homes is being considered. Again I say that I an glad this matter has been raised and discussed upon this occasion. The subject is a very grave one. These death-rate statistics are
610
very serious, and I wish it had been possible to have had some more specific details than we have had to-night. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure the House on these matters, and in sitting down I wish to repeat my emphatic conviction that everything will be done that can be done by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the distinguished soldiers in command of the military operations to alleviate the condition of these people. It is our duty in the House of Commons to be vigilant in these matters, and we have done right in being vigilant. I have yet to be convinced that there has been brought home to them any blameworthiness for a state of things which, if it is blameworthy, is blameworthy because of causes far deeper and reasons more far-reaching then any mere incidents that can happen in the course of a great military campaign.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has, like other hon. Members of this House, no doubt the greatest sympathy with these unfortunate women and children whose case is now being considered. At the same time, I think there are a number of hon. Members who will agree with me that the tone and the trend of the speech of the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire is not calculated to urge the Government to relieve in any way the things which we complain of in regard to their conduct in South Africa. When a specific charge is made in this House that certain things are being done in South Africa which are a dishonour to the name of this country and to the very name of civilisation, the proper way to have these things altered is not to get up and express your utmost confidence that the case in regard to them has been exaggerated, and to say that everything possible will be done, and no doubt has been done. I think if a remedy is looked for it will have to be sought rather in the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Carnarvon and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, who, in my opinion as an Irishman, are redeeming the very name and credit and honour of England by the action they are taking. The hon. Member

611
for Haddingtonshire said he regretted that this matter could not be discussed without having a heated tone imported into the debate. Nobody wants, in a serious case of this kind, where serious allegations are made, to have a heated discussion or to introduce anything at all in the shape of party recriminations; but I venture to say that whatever has been introduced into this debate of that character has largely been introduced by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire himself, because instead of confining himself to the particular matters which were raised by the motion of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, to a large extent he went into the history of the commencement of this war. If the hon. Member did not want to introduce heat, why did he make the charge that President Kruger was responsible for this war Knowing as he did the ruling which had been given, and the limits within which this debate had to be confined, there was no justification whatever for the hon. Member venturing the opinion that Mr. Kruger was to blame for this war, when he knew very well that you, Mr. Speaker, would not allow any subsequent speaker to go into the Causes which originated this war or into the conduct of Mr. Kruger. The hon. Member for Haddingtonshire was most anxious to say that he does not believe any cruelty is knowingly or willingly indulged in by those in authority in South Africa, and he is quite sure that there is not a single Member in this House who is not inclined to condemn cruelty and inconsiderate treatment to women and children in South Africa. I re-echo that opinion. As I understand the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, they do not make specific charges against persons or individuals in South Africa. They do not charge hon. Gentlemen opposite who support this policy with being themselves individually in favour of what is complained of in their conduct toward these women and children. On the contrary, as far as my information goes, so far from charging those in immediate authority in South Africa, and certainly so far from charging the rank and file of the Army of the British Empire, it is quite the contrary. But while we
612
make these complaints as to the treatment accorded to the women and children in these camps we say, at the same time, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that the rank and file of the British Army, if canvassed, would be found to be absolutely and utterly disgusted at the work they are called upon to do, and the deeds they have been called upon to perform, which is not the work they enlisted in the Army to carry out, and which is not the work of a soldier. I venture to say that to have armed sentries surrounding, the camps of defenceless and helpless, women and children in different parts of South Africa is not the work of soldiering in the Army, and it is repugnant to their feelings and disgraceful and discreditable to those who place such work upon them.
Sir, we have had extraordinary instances of the want of consideration on the part of those in authority many times since this war commenced, but nevertheless I do not charge individuals or persons—they are obliged to carry out the system, but I shall deliberately and absolutely, without the slightest fear of contradiction, and with the full responsibility which attaches to my words, so long as I am a Member of this House, denounce as barbarous, outrageous, scandalous, and disgraceful, the way in which these wretched, unfortunate and poor women and children have been treated in South Africa. [Ministerial cries of "Divide, divide."] You may cry "Divide," but you cannot alter the words I utter, and you cannot prevent me as a Member of this House saying to you, and to the world outside through the press, that your conduct in South Africa in connection with these women and children is conduct which would bring shame to the cheeks of the most savage and most barbarous people in existence. We sometimes hear wonder expressed why the war is still dragging on. We sometimes wonder, when the news of another engagement comes, why the Boers are still holding to their arms. I do not know what reasons may animate them in continuing this war, but I do say that in all probability the worst part of this war would have been now over, and hundreds of lives would have been saved, but for the treament

613
you have meted out to the wives and the daughters of these men who are now in the field against us. Therefore I am not surprised at the action of the Boers in continuing this struggle, and I say here that if I belonged to the race of Boers—and if I did I should be very proud of it—and if the faintest echo of the news of the treatment which has been accorded to poor Boer women and children in the refugee camps had reached my ears, it would steel my heart and make me determined, if nothing else affected me, to fight to the last against the flag and the country, and the people and the Government, which could sink so low as to attempt to make war upon helpless women and children in this way. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire speaks softly of these matters. I say that the time has come for everyone in this House, whether he be from Scotland, England, Wales, or Ireland, who believes in humanity, honour, and civilisation, to raise his voice against this state of things. The speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition was a calm and moderate one, but it illustrates in this House what is going on outside, and it is that the masses of the people of England and Scotland are tired and sick at heart of these brutalities, and the Leader of the Opposition has echoed that feeling in his speech to-night. We are told that the Government will do their best to remedy this state of things, and we are told that we ought not to spring debates like this upon the House. That is all very well, but unless we do this how are we to get grievances removed? Are grievances removed by consulting the convenience of the Government, or by refraining from moving the adjournment, and sitting silent on these benches? No. I say that what has been done in South Africa—and I admit that something has been done—to mitigate the suffering of these unhappy women and children, is the direct result of action taken in this House. We know that there have been two scales of food—a full dinner and a full meal for the poor child whose father has pulled his flag down, and handed in his arms and surrendered to the British, and half a meal for the wretched little child in camp whose father still holds on to his rifle. Is that
614
making war in a British way? Is that making war in a way calculated to bring credit upon this nation? Is that carrying on war in the spirit in which it would have been carried on by the men who fought for England in days gone by? No. Such conduct as the starvation of poor women and children in order to make their able-bodied relatives surrender is a course of action the most discreditable, the most contemptible, and the most dastardly which I have ever heard of. No man can deny the truth of what I have said. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Do hon. Members deny that at the commencement of these encampments there were two scales of food; that one scale was supplied to the women and children of the men who were not in arms against us, and that the lesser scale was supplied to the women and children of the men who were still on commando? [AN HON. MEMBER: I deny the whole tenour of the hon. Gentleman's speech. There was only a certain amount of food to go round, and that is the answer to his argument.] I do not ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to approve of the whole tenour of my speech. If I thought for a moment that I should have the approval of the whole tenour of my speech from him and hon. Gentlemen sitting around him I should be ashamed. I do, however, ask him, can he deny the specific statement made that more food was given to the wives and children of those who had surrendered and less to the wives and children of those who were still in arms against us? His answer to this is one which has never been heard of from any other quarter of the House up till now. He states that there was not food enough to go round, but I have not heard that argument advanced by the Secretary of State for War, or from anybody in authority. But, granted that it is true, what a curious coincidence it is that, when there is not enough to go round, the larger share shall be given to the women and children of those who have surrendered, and the smaller portion to the women and children of the men who are still on commando. That system did exist, and it cannot be denied. I am heartily glad, and so is every other man here, whether he be an Englishman, Scotchman, or Irishman, to know that that system has been abandoned; and

615
now I understand that the same food is given in equal quantities to all these wretched women and helpless children, whether their husbands and fathers are still fighting or whether they have been taken prisoners. I am glad to know that this system has been abandoned, but when was it abandoned? I ask the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire why was it abandoned? It was not abandoned until the hon. Member for Carnarvon and men like him exposed this system in the House, and brought home to the attention of the British public this kind of treatment. After the Government had been put to some inconvenience, then this policy was changed and something was done in the matter. I know many hon. Members of this House deprecated interference at the time, but the result of that interference was that this diabolical system was destroyed.
We are told the question of allowing these women and children to go to whatever homes any of them have still left standing is being considered. We know many of them have lost not only their breadwinners, but their very homes have been razed to the ground. Many of them have no homes to go to, and still we are told that the question of allowing their friends to take care of them is being seriously considered. I am making no personal attack upon the Secretary of State for War in this matter, because I can hardly conceive that any man who really has information of what is going on could approve of the things which are being done. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the question of allowing these people to return to their homes is being considered, and why is it being considered now? Exactly for the same reason that the two different scales of provisions for the women and children was considered. It is now being considered, because a few good and true men in this House, like the hon. Member for Carnarvon and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, have raised their voices here. I do sincerely hope and trust that the day is very near when all these things which are complained of most justly will have disappeared, and when better treatment will be meted out to these wretched women and children. When this has been achieved great credit will be undoubtedly due to those hon. Members
616
who, though they have been denounced by the majority, have, to the honour of England, protested against such treatment.
There is only one point to which I wish to refer, and it explains why I, as an Irish Member, interfere in this debate at all. Are these women, some of whom are old and others young, prisoners or are they not? I want a straight answer to that question. I say that a straight answer has not yet been vouchsafed to the country by the Government. We are told that they are pauper refugees. We are told that they are destitute, and might perhaps be outraged and murdered by the natives. We are told that all of their own free will came into the camps and stay there now. Is that true? I say it is not true. I say that, just as Boer men are prisoners surrounded by British sentries with rifles and bayonets in St. Helena, Ceylon, and other places, the Boer women and children are prisoners surrounded by sentries in South Africa at the present time. I have got strange confirmation of my suspicion in this matter from the Secretary of State for War at question time. He let fall the word "release." What does he mean by the release of these people? You do not speak of the release of voluntary refugees. You speak of the release of people who are prisoners. Prisoners these people are, and I say it is a dishonour and a discredit to this country, to the very name of civilisation, that this should go on, and, moreover, I say this—and I have some slight knowledge of the Dutch in South Africa, having spent some time years ago in Cape Colony—every day you continue this treatment, every day you allow women and young children to die in these wretched camps, you make more difficult and more impossible British rule in South Africa, and you instil into the hearts of the Dutch people a deadlier hatred, if possible, than exists at the present time for your rule. If not for the sake of humanity, if not for the sake of the sufferings of the women and children—and there is no gentleman in the House of Commons but must have sympathy with these wretched women and children who are huddled together—I ask that a new arangement should be made for the sake of the common interest of this country.

617
I ask you, out of common prudence and out of common regard to what you propose to do for South Africa in the future, having regard for the peace and contentment of the country, to put an end to these camps of hell which are at the present time simply maddening every man of the Dutch race throughout the length and breadth of Africa and Europe as well.
There are some hon. Members opposite who take this matter lightly. I confess that I myself belong to the Irish race, and I say, whatever the light-heartedness of the Irish race may be, that there is not one of us who has not been stricken with sorrow and sadness as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War read out the figures with regard to these camps. Hundreds of poor, wretched, helpless little children dying every month! Hundreds of women dying! An abnormal death-rate which, even according to what the Secretary of State for War has himself stated, is sufficient to appal every man who realises what it really means. I can only say from my heart and soul that I pity the man who can find cause to smile in the story related by the Secretary of State for War. If you had nothing else, the rate of mortality of women and children is reason enough itself for moving the adjournment of the House in this matter; and, as an Irishman, having very little reason to have consideration, and much less admiration, for English Members of this House or the conduct of the English Government, I say, and I believe it is the feeling of my countrymen around me, that we do honour and admire the gentlemen who have brought this discussion forward, and if there is a gleam of hope or generosity or honour in the present situation it has undoubtedly been afforded by the action of the Welsh and English Members, who differ from us on many questions, but who have shown us in this matter that they have hearts to feel and minds sufficiently statesmanlike to perceive that danger—[A laugh.] Yes, he is not an Englishman who is laughing now. He is an Irishman who is sitting away from his own countrymen, and who has joined the foreign commando. I say that whatever gleam of hope and honour there is has been afforded by
618
those independent Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotchmen who are not debarred by the sneers and jibes of the great party that have secured a big majority from coming to the House of Commons and raising their voices on behalf of the wretched people who have no others to speak for them at the present time. I say that their action does honour and credit to the countries to which they belong, and as far as gentlemen from Ireland are concerned, I say that we join with them heartily and, to some extent, hopefully in this effort, and we trust that as the result of the exposure something will be done to alleviate the lot of these people in South Africa. Do not tell me that this must be kept up till the war is over. Send them to their husbands in various parts of the world. Although I have denounced the First Lord of the Treasury for eighteen years in this House, and although at one time he was my jailor, I still say here from my observation of him for many years that I do not believe he has a heart which would approve or sanction in the slightest degree things which were really cruel and unnecessary. I ask him as head of the Government to inquire if the charges which have been made are true. How can that be done? It can only be done by sending a fair and impartial Commission to South Africa. Let it be composed of men who have the confidence of Liberals and Tories and the Irish Members. Let them inquire into the conditions of these camps, and if that Commission reports against the system, in the name of God and for the sake of Christianity I ask you to abolish that system and to restore these people to the comforts and the decencies of ordinary civilised life.
*MR. HERBERT LEWIS: It has been stated that Mr. Rowntree was only able to visit one or two of the camps in Cape Town and Natal. I would like to ask whose fault was that? Was it the fault of Mr. Rowntree or the Government, or those who represent the Government in South Africa, who did not allow Mr. Rowntree to proceed further than the limits I have stated? But fortunately we have evidence at first hand, taken from a considerable number of the camps by a

619
lady whose word will command implicit confidence from everyone who knows her. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech referred to a case in which Boers refused to be separated from their children, and would not allow them to go into the hospital. Now, may I give the House one or two reasons for this? [Interruption and cries of "Divide."] This question affects 60,000 people, of whom 40,000 are children, and I venture to think that under the circumstances, although hon. Gentlemen may be anxious to go to dinner, they could listen for a few moments to a few of the details which have been asked for. Why have the Boer families refused to be separated? I will give the right hon. Gentleman one case which may show the reason for that. The lady who visited the camps says—
"In our tent a girl of twenty-one lay dying on a stretcher. The father, a big, gentle Boer, kneeling beside her; while in the next tent his wife was watching a child of six, also dying, and one of about five drooping. Already this couple had lost three children in the hospital, and so would not let these go, though I begged hard to take them out of the hot tent. 'We must watch these ourselves,' he said."
That may give the right hon. Gentleman some inkling as to the reason why in certain cases Boer families refuse to be separated from one another. The right hon. Gentleman has given us to-night the usual official optimism with perfect honesty, as he always does, but may I recall to his recollection the questions asked in this House on 1st and 8th March. On the 1st March the right hon. Gentleman said—
"Lord Kitchener has informed me that a sufficient allowance is being given to all families in camp, and that they are satisfied and comfortable."
On the 8th March he said:—
"Lord Kitchener telegraphed to me that he himself has gone into the question, and finds that the people in the laagers are all contented and comfortable."
Well, I have something to say upon that point. [Cries of "Divide!"] You have asked for details, and I propose to give the House some. Here are the circumstances under which the Boer prisoners were "contented and comfortable" on 13th March. This is Miss
620
Hobhouse's description of the camp at Kimberley five days after the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in the House of Commons:—
"It is the smallest in area that I have seen. The tents too close together, and the whole enclosed in an 8ft. high barbed wire fencing, which is supposed to be impregnable, and cost £500. Sentries at the gate and walking inside; no nurse; an empty unfurnished marquee, which might be a hospital; overcrowded tents; measles and whooping cough rife; camp dirty and smelling; an army doctor, who naturally knows little of children's ailments; fuel almost none."
Then again—[Cries of "Divide!"]—I think the House has asked for facts. I am attempting to give the House some facts, and may I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen? The war has now been proceeding for eighteen months, and this is only the second occasion on which I have said a single word. I am going to make one appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the children. There are certain mothers who have been separated from their children. They are mad to get to those children, and I would ask him to consider whether he will allow the mothers to go and search for their children. They have been compulsorily separated, and I trust the Government will, at all events, as an act of grace allow the mothers to rejoin their children. We have already heard something of the condition of the children in the camps. What has been said so far has been by way of general statement, and I should like to give—[Cries of "Divide!"] The effect of the camp system, as described by eye-witnesses, presses hardest on the children. Thousands of them are physically unfit to undergo the conditions of life there. They have not the strength to endure it, and we are told that to keep these camps going is murder to the children. The Government has taken upon itself a grave responsibility in sanctioning what is going on at the present time. Who would have thought when General Weyler had his concentration camps in Cuba that similar measures would be adopted within the bounds of the British Empire? The right hon. Gentleman has defended all that has taken place in connection with these camps on the

621
ground of expediency. I would venture to say, looking at these 40,000 children in the camps, that we are only sowing the seeds of discontent, and that we may reap a terrible harvest some day—not perhaps this year or next year, but in time coming a nation will grow up which will remember all these iniquities.
If, on other grounds, our remonstrances are disregarded, I would venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on the lowest ground—that of expense. As an instance of the extravagant cost of these camps, I may mention that in one place twenty iron rooms were put up, and they cost on the average £125 each. There are a large number of women beseeching to be sent to their own relatives. The relatives offer to pay the expense. Why should they not be allowed to go to their relatives in Cape Colony? I do not wish to arouse any party feeling in this House, nor have I done so. The facts surely speak for themselves, and I have confidence that when the case is presented to the right hon. Gentleman he will take what steps are in his power. I am afraid he is not convinced of the sad state of things in these camps. I beg him to obtain early and full information on the point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made it extremely difficult for me to speak on this question. I only wish that someone would be allowed to set forth some of the actual details and circumstances of what has occurred. I have had the advantage of reading reports by independent eye-witnesses. I venture to think if hon. Gentlemen opposite would read these reports they would feel there was a case for prompt intervention. I appeal to the Government
for the sake of the little children who are passing away like so many faded flowers in South Africa, for the sake of the parents who have to see them sick and dying before their eyes, to give their attention to this matter. The only effect of the present policy is to madden and exasperate the enemies of this country. They will be enemies to all eternity unless we reverse this policy.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." [Nationalist cries of "Oh" and "Gag."]
*MR. SPEAKER: accepted the motion.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You want to stifle the truth.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member to use more regular language.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In regard to this I repeat that you want to stifle the truth. You are ashamed of this work, and you are trying to shelve it. [Nationalist cheers and Ministerial cries of "Name him."] Name away. You are trying to cloak it all up.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 256.)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hobhouse, Henry (Somert, E.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Hogg, Lindsay

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Plummer, Walter R.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Price-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pym, C. Guy

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Cranborne, Viscount

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Randles, John S.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Rankin, Sir James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Rasch, Major Frederic C.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Keswick, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Kimber, Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Renwick, George

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lawson, John Grant

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.

Round, James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

Russell, T. W.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Duke, Henry Edward

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Seton-Karr, Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Spear, John Ward

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r)

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Finch, George H.

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

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

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Stock, James Henry

Fison, Frederick William

Maconochie, A. W.

Stroyan, John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

Flower, Ernest

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

Majendie, James A. H.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Malcolm, Ian

Thornton, Percy M.

Garfit, William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Tollemache, Henry James

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

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

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Goschen, Hon George Joachim

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Valentia, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Graham, Henry Robert

Mitchell, William

Walker, Col. William Hall

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Warde, Col. C. E.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesby.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

Webb, Col. William George

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taun'n).

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

Hain, Edward

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Myers, William Henry

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon E R (Bath)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nicholson, William Graham

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wylie, Alexander

Hay, Hn. Claude George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Younger, William

Helder, Augustus

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Henderson, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

Hoare, Edw Brodie Hampste'd

Percy, Earl

Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 253. (Division List, No. 257.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balfour, Maj K R (Christch'rch)

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Banbury, Frederick George

Bull, William James

Allsopp, Hon. George

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

Butcher, John George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bigwood, James

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bill, Charles

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Blundell, Col. Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Austin, Sir John

Bond, Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bousfield, William Robert

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

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Baird, John George Alexander

Bowles, T Gibson (King's Lynn)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Brassey, Albert

Chapman, Edward

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hobhouse, Henry (Somert, E.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Hogg, Lindsay

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Plummer, Walter R.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Price-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pym, C. Guy

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Cranborne, Viscount

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Randles, John S.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Rankin, Sir James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Rasch, Major Frederic C.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Keswick, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Kimber, Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Renwick, George

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lawson, John Grant

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.

Round, James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

Russell, T. W.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Duke, Henry Edward

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Seton-Karr, Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Spear, John Ward

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r)

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Finch, George H.

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

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

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Stock, James Henry

Fison, Frederick William

Maconochie, A. W.

Stroyan, John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

Flower, Ernest

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

Majendie, James A. H.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Malcolm, Ian

Thornton, Percy M.

Garfit, William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Tollemache, Henry James

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

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

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Goschen, Hon George Joachim

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Valentia, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Graham, Henry Robert

Mitchell, William

Walker, Col. William Hall

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Warde, Col. C. E.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesby.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

Webb, Col. William George

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taun'n).

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

Hain, Edward

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Myers, William Henry

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon E R (Bath)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nicholson, William Graham

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wylie, Alexander

Hay, Hn. Claude George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Younger, William

Helder, Augustus

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Henderson, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

Hoare, Edw Brodie Hampste'd

Percy, Earl

NOES.

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

Grant, Corrie

O'Dowd, John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Kelly, Conor, (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Charlea P. (Glouc. Stroud

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Ambrose, Robert

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

O'Malley, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harwood, George

O'Mara, James

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Shee, James John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Helme, Norval Watson

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Bell, Richard

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Black, Alexander William

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blake, Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

Price, Robert John

Boland, John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reckitt, Harold James

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reddy, M.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burns, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kennedy, Patrick James

Rickett, J. Compton

Caine, William Sproston

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Rigg, Richard

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Leamy, Edmund

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Carew, James Laurence

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Robson, Wm. Snowdon

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cogan, Denis J.

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'rth'nts

Craig, Robert Hunter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sullivan, Donal

Crean, Eugene

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Crombie, John William

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Cullinan, J.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Govern, T.

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Delany, William

Mather, William

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

Donelan, Capt. A.

Mooney, John J.

Tomkinson, James

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

Wallace, Robert

Duffy, William J.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Murnaghan, George

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Murphy, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Emmott, Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ffrench, Peter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, Charles H. (Hull, W.)

Field, William

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

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. John Ellis.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Boland, John

Causton, Richard Knight

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Channing, Francis Allston

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

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Clancy, John Joseph

Ambrose, Robert

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cogan, Denis J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burns, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Craig, Robert Hunter

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Caine, William Sproston

Crean, Eugene

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Caldwell, James

Crombie, John William

Bell, Richard

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Cullinan, J.

Black, Alexander William

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dalziel, James Henry

Blake, Edward

Carew, James Laurence

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Delany William

Leng, Sir John

Price, Robert John

Donelan, Captain A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Reckitt, Harold James

Doogan, P. C.

Lough, Thomas

Reddy, M.

Duffy, William J.

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Edwards, Frank

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Crae, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Dermott, Patrick

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Govern, T.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Field, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mather, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Flynn, James Christopher

Mooney, John J.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Murnaghan, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gilhooly, James

Murphy, John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Sullivan, Donal

Grant, Corrie

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hammond, John

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, G'wer

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.

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

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Tomkinson, James

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Wallace, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Dowd, John

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Horniman, Frederick John

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Malley, William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Mara, James

Wilson, Chas, Henry (Hull, W.)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Shee, James John

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Labouchere, Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Mr. Loyd-George and Mr John Ellis.

Leamy, Edmund

Power, Patrick Joseph

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Butcher, John George

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Duke, Henry Edward

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Allsopp, Hon George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Austin, Sir John

Chapman, Edward

Finch, George H.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bain, Col. James Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Fisber, William Hayes

Baird, John George Alexander

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fison, Frederick William

Balcarres, Lord

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Atbole

Flower, Ernest

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Forster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ

Banbury, Frederick George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Garfit, William

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

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

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

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

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bigwood, James

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Bill, Charles

Crossley, Sir Savile

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Blundell, Col. Henry

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Bond, Edward

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bousfield, William Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Green, Walford D (Wednesb'ry

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

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

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

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Brassey, Albert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hain, Edward

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hall, Edward Marshall

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Bull, William James

Dorington, Sir John Edward

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

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Round, James

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Majendie, James A. H.

Russell, T. W.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Malcolm, Ian

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Manners, Lord Cecil

Seton-Karr, Henry

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Helder, Augustus

Middlemore, John T.

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Henderson, Alexander

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Mitchell, William

Spear, John Ward

Higginbottom, S. W.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stanley, Edward J. (Somersets)

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hogg, Lindsay

Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Stock, James Henry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

Stroyan, John

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morrison, James Archibald

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.

Mount, William Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Thornton, Percy M.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Tollemache, Henry James

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Nicholson, William Graham

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

Valentia, Viscount

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Vincent, Cl. Sir C. E. H. (Sh'ffi'ld

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Keswick, William

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Walker, Col. William Hall

Kimber, Henry

Percy, Earl

Warde, Col. C. E.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pierpoint, Robert

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Webb, Col. William George

Lawson, John Grant

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Purvis, Robert

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Wills, Sir Frederick

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Randles, John S.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Long, Col Charles W (Evesham)

Rankin, Sir James

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

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

Rasch, Major Fredc. Carne

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Wylie, Alexander

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Younger, William

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Rentoul, James Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Macdona, John Cumming

Renwick, George

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Maconochie, A. W.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

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

Ropner, Col. Robert

Bill read a second time, and committed to Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [11th June],
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed—
MR. ASQUITH: When I ventured to move the adjournment of the debate on Tuesday last, on the stroke of midnight, the First Lord of the Treasury, in assenting to the motion,
630
expressed regret that it had been made, and some hon. Members below the gang, way opposite went so far as to challenge a division. I must confess that that was a rather unreasonable exhibition of impatience, for, as the Home Secretary knows very well, I have been anxious to facilitate the Second Reading of the Bill and to have it sent with all possible speed to the Committee, where its complicated details will be thoroughly overhauled. But it should be remembered under what conditions the debate has been carried on. By one of those caprices in procedure from which we all suffer in turn, and while suffering denounce,

631
though no one seems to have courage to grapple with it, the best hours of the afternoon are occupied with private Bills, and this was followed by a motion from the Government to take the whole time of the House, with the result that it was not until half-past nine that the Home Secretary was able to make his explanatory statement on the motion for Second Reading, and only two hours of Parliamentary time were actually devoted to the discussion. I venture to say to those hon. Gentlemen who were so intolerant of my motion, that having regard to the length and complexity of the Bill, and that it is the largest and most ambitious in its scope of any measure of the kind, though it will not I hope prove to be contentious, some allowance should be made for the anxious desire of those who have been responsible for factory legislation in the past to have opportunity for a few words of criticism on its general scope. Let me add that I believe, from the character of the debate the other night, the time will not be un-profitably consumed. I have prefaced my observations with a perfectly frank acknowledgment that the Bill represents a very substantial advance, not only on previous legislation, but in a still more marked and significant degree as compared with the proposals put forward by the Government last year.
The provisions of the Bill, speaking generally, may be divided into two categories—on the one hand, what I may call new development in factory law, and on the other hand amendments in the existing law in the way of defining it in form and enlarging the scope for facilitating enforcement. As regards the new developments, I hail them unreservedly as in all respects improvements on existing legislation. The first and most important is that in the 15th clause, requiring every occupier of a factory or workshop to provide and maintain sufficient ventilation. It would perhaps surprise a great many Members not familiar with factory legislation to find there was no such provision on the Statute-book. A factory at present must be clean, must be kept free from effluvia, must not be overcrowded, and all injurious gases, dust and other substances generated in manufacture must foe rendered harmless; but there
632
is no general provision such as is now proposed for the provision and maintenance of a sufficient system of ventilation. I welcome this as being strictly in harmony with lines of legislation in the past. In the proposals to which I obtained the sanction of Parliament in 1895 were measures for securing, for the first time, that every room in a factory or workshop should be kept at a reasonable temperature—a provision which I am glad to see is sensibly strengthened in another clause of the Bill. Still dealing with the new provisions, there are two others which either bring within the scope of the law trades which are at present excluded, or other operations which are a source of danger. I am glad to see the new provisions in Clause 19 for the periodical examination of steam boilers, and for bringing factory or workshop railways and sidings within the scope of the principal Acts. Both of these are very useful provisions; but I regret that like provision is not made for machinery in docks, loading and unloading from barges—an urgent and necessitous case. I had a difficulty in 1895 in getting a modified amount of security, for shipowners, not unnaturally perhaps, were apprehensive that, while being under a code of regulations and inspection and supervision by the Board of Trade, they would come under another code of regulations supervised by the Home Office, and be harassed in every direction. The apprehension was quite unfounded, and the right hon. Gentleman might well have considered the expediency of enlarging the dock clause.
Before I proceed to deal with alterations in the substance of the existing law, I must refer to the alterations in procedure for the regulation of dangerous trades and the substitution for the existing system of arbitration, which has been denounced year by year for the last ten years, an absolute power with the Home Office to make regulations, subject to the supervision and control of Parliament to make such regulations for ensuring safety. The Home Secretary, when dealing with this part of the Bill, was good enough to credit me with having anticipated this provision, and that is perfectly true as regards the principle, but I must enter my caveat

633
against the proposal in the third clause in its present shape. It would be enough, I think, if the Secretary of State satisfied himself by inquiry through a Departmental Committee, hearing all interests, and then sanctioned a code of regulations instead of calling in a competent person to go over the whole ground again and hear objections. That procedure, if properly followed, would be quite sufficient, and the Home Secretary would see that the code was submitted to and approved by Parliament, Subject to this criticism, I agree that there is a great improvement in the proposed procedure.
As to the alterations in the existing law, some, no doubt, are for the better, others for the worse. I will not dwell upon a number of useful but apparently unimportant changes, such as prohibition of the cleaning of machinery in motion. The extension of that prohibition to the case of children cleaning any place under machinery is a very excellent and necessary change. I am also glad to see the clause requiring the provision of the means of escape from fire, and that the right hon. Gentleman has gone a step further towards securing a proper sanitary condition for bakehouses. In 1895 I was fortunate enough to induce the House to agree that after January 1st, 1896, no new bakehouses should be opened underground. I was then told this would destroy the baking trade, that it would be quite impossible to carry out the law among great urban communities. But there has been no serious objection from any quarter, and the provision has worked very well. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, encouraged, I suppose, by experience, is going to carry the law a step further and provide that after 1st January, 1904, no underground bakehouse shall be used, unless certified to be suitable for the purpose by the district council. That is a very distinct advance in the law on this point. Now I come to two or three matters of great importance, and of somewhat more dubious, or, at any rate, more contentious character. First of all, I will refer to the provisions of the Bill dealing with laundries. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the other night that in the first sub-section of this clause, as it is now
634
framed, he was reverting to a proposal which I myself made in 1895, namely, that every laundry which was carried on by way of trade or for the purposes of gain should be deemed, according to whether mechanical power was or was not used, to be either a factory or a workshop. The right hon. Gentleman has reverted to that now. If he asks me why that proposal did not become law, I am afraid I must refer him for an answer to his colleague the Under Secretary to the Home Department.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): It is not the same proposal.
MR. ASQUITH: It is as far as the first sub-section is concerned, but I am dealing now with the main principle, that, subject to certain exemption, every laundry carried on for gain or by way of trade must be subject to inspection either as a factory or a workshop. I made that proposal, but was unable to carry it, largely owing to the strenuous efforts of the present Under Secretary to the Home Department, loyally supported, I must say, by the Colonial Secretary. Many of us who remember the hours and days we spent on that Bill discussing this topic must have it indelibly engraved on our minds. The woes of the wash-tub had never found so eloquent or pathetic an exponent. The right hon. Gentleman drew a harrowing picture of the poor widow with a mangle toiling night and day to support her orphan children, who would be crushed out of industrial existence by the ruthless inspector. What was the result? The Grand Committee, under the alluring but misleading pleading of the right hon. Gentleman, was swept away on a flood tide of emotion, with which I was wholly incompetent to contend. The result was that not only the widow with the mangle, but the whole of the laundries connected with conventual or other charitable institutions, were exempted altogether from the law, and those which remained, the laundries in the strictest sense of the word, carried on by way of trade or for gain, were left under conditions which I ventured to

635
predict at the time would be absolutely unscientific and unworkable. That prediction has been amply verified by experience, for the right hon. Gentleman told us that the law has been practically a dead letter for six years, and these laundries have been living, moving, and having their being in a kind of industrial Alsatia of their own. The general rule now is to be that laundries are to be brought within the Factories and Workshops Act, but while I welcome that provision—I am not expressing on the point a very decided opinion—I confess I entertain very considerable doubt as to the wisdom of the second sub-section which enables the Secretary of State, subject to a maximum, to modify the provisions of the Factory Acts with regard to the periods of employment and meal hours for women, young persons, and children. I am not myself satisfied as to the necessity of treating laundries in this special way. I may point out, and I am sure this is a consideration which will carry great weight with the right hon. Gentleman and everyone concerned with the practical administration of a clause of this kind, that the moment we begin to have a shifting system of hours we practically destroy the value of our system of inspection. With a regular time-table inspection is useful and effective, but with a shifting time-table the work of inspection becomes enormously difficult, and the possibilities of evasion or subterfuge are greatly increased.
There is another matter of great importance in the law as regards laundries which, to use the language which was embodied in the Act of 1895, "employ only the inmates of institutions conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes." The hon. Member for Waterford the other night made a speech on this subject. I am sure he did not intend in any way to convey a misleading impression, but he rather conveyed the impression that that was a proposal of mine or one to which I willingly assented. It was nothing of the kind. The exemption of these conventual and charitable institutions from the scope of the law was very reluctantly agreed to by me under pressure, most of it exercised by the Irish Members and as the price of
636
carrying my Bill through the Committee. If I had not consented, I do not believe I should ever have got the Bill through the Grand Committee at all, as the circumstances were somewhat acute. I am not making any charge against the conventual laundries in particular, but with regard to many of these laundries conducted in connection with so-called charitable institutions I have looked into the matter recently, and I am satisfied, from the correspondence I have had on the subject, that there is a vast field for inspection. The sanitary conditions which prevail in many of these laundries are disgraceful, and so long as they are not subject either to inspection or legal control it is very difficult to find any leverage which will effectually operate on the minds or affect the conduct of those responsible for them. In France they have extended the system of inspection to all institutions of this sort. The first result of that inspection was to disclose the existence of enormous and widespread evils in these very places. I quite sympathise, I will not say sympathise, but I quite understand the reluctance, particularly of institutions conducted by Roman Catholics, in which the work is mainly done by nuns or by persons more or less under religious control, to accept the ordinary system of inspection; but I cannot help thinking that the grounds on which that objection rested have been enormously weakened, if not altogether removed, since we have had lady inspectors. I cannot possibly see, if the se institutions are well conducted, and no doubt the majority of them are, why they should object to a lady occasionally coming in and seeing how they are going on. I cannot feel sanguine, or indeed entertain any expectation whatever, of good resulting from the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that managers are to name their own inspectors, and that the persons who are to report whether the legal standard of requirements is or is not being observed are persons who have been appointed by the managers themselves. If that is the only possible alternative I almost think it may be as well to leave the law as it stands.
I pass from that to another clause of the Bill on which I must make a comment

637
not wholly favourable. I mean the proposed amendment of the law with regard to notice of accidents in Clause 35. Under the existing law, as the House is aware, notice of every accident which occurs in a factory or workshop has to be sent to a factory inspector, providing the accident is sufficiently grave to disable the person injured for five hours in the first or three following days. Under a provision inserted in the Act of 1895, every such accident has to be registered by an officer of the factory, and the register is always open to examination by the inspector. The right hon. Gentleman proposes—I do not know why, because we have not had any explanation of this proposed change, which I cannot help thinking is a very retrograde step—he proposes very substantially to relax the stringency of the provisions for giving notice of accidents. Under the clause in the Bill, instead of notice being required of every accident which is sufficiently grave to disable the person injured in the manner specified in the Act, the only accidents, except fatal ones, which it is required should be reported are those belonging to a class "specified in that behalf by an Order of the Secretary of State." What is the object of that proposal? I presume—I can only presume, because I have not the least idea—that it is to diminish the work of the inspectors by doing away with the necessity for their receiving these notices, and making the consequent inquiries in the cases of what are called trivial accidents. I strongly deprecate that change, and I will tell the House why. In the first place, it must be remembered that these so-called trivial accidents are the very class of accidents which, whether for good or bad—I have my own opinion about that—are excluded from the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act. As the House knows, if the effect of an accident does not last more than a fortnight, the injured workman can get no compensation whatever under the Workmen's Compensation Act. If, therefore, as regards this class of accidents the employer has not the inducement to take that care which results from the liability to make compensation, and at the same time you take away that further inducement which exists in the necessity put on him to
638
report every one of these accidents as soon as it has occurred, it seems to me that it will very substantially diminish the motives which at present operate in the minds of the worst class of employers. What will be the consequence? I am afraid the consequence will be that not only will there be an increase in these accidents, but that considerably less care will be taken than at present in fencing dangerous parts of machinery. I will tell the House why. It is the very fact that a large number of small accidents of a so-called trivial description have occurred that makes it of the utmost importance to have the inspectors' judgment as to whether particular machinery or the state of that machinery is dangerous, and therefore should be fenced, and we have the right to make the inspector's opinion on that point prima facie evidence that the machinery is dangerous. You will deprive by this proposal the inspector of the best means to enable him to form a trustworthy opinion, and you will also destroy, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean mentioned the other night, what I may call the statistical stability of the returns. If you introduce this change into the system of reporting accidents you will not be able to compare the periods after the new system with the periods before it, and if the Secretary of State is able to alter by way of enlargement or curtailment the class of accidents which has to be reported, then one period will cease to be scientifically comparable with another. We have made enormous progress during the last ten years in the fulness and accuracy of our industrial statistics. They are not only of importance to the politician and economist, but also to medical men and all persons engaged in social reform, and I think it would be a very unfortunate step if we were to destroy the fulness or stability of our statistics.
Lastly, I come to another provision of the Bill, which I think requires criticism. It is a new proposal, namely, the partial substitution of a local for a central authority. The clauses in question are Clauses 9, 10, and 11, Clause 9 proposes that the outworker's list is to be sent in every case to the district council. I have no objection to that myself, and, further, I entirely approve of the removal

639
of the existing restrictions on the power of the Secretary of State to deal with unwholesome areas where home work is carried on. But when we come to Clauses 10 and 11 we find that the prohibition of home work in places where there is infectious disease, or in unsanitary places, is in future to be enforced, not by the inspector of the Home Office, but by the district council. I regret that change. I am not going to draw up any indictment against the local authorities. In years gone by they have been grossly remiss in the enforcement of sanitary provisions, but during the last five or six years they have been, in London particularly, much more vigilant in detecting offences against the law. But the local standard is a varying standard. It may be high in one place and very low indeed in another, and although the progress to which I have referred has been undoubtedly taking place in our large self-governing urban communities, we cannot say the same for the rural districts. We must have regard to the fact that there is a growing tendency to plant new factories not in the old congested centres of population, but in new rural districts. You cannot travel along the London and North Western Railway between London and Crewe without seeing dotted about large factories giving employment to hundreds of men and women, and if the authority in regard to places of that kind is to be the rural district council, the members of which often have not the knowledge and training fitting them to deal with insanitary conditions in factories which members of urban councils often have, I cannot help feeling that we will relax our standard of stringency in the enforcement of the law. While we should encourage local authorities to co-operate in every way in enforcing the law, which no doubt materially affects the sanitary condition of their own areas, we should retain, at all hazards, and for all purposes, the supervision and control of the Home Office as the central authority. I am satisfied that that is the only way we can have uniformity of system and a regular enforcement of the law.
I have said all I have to say by way of detailed criticism, and I will only make one concluding observation. This is the latest, or it may be destined to be the last, of a series of enactments which have
640
gradually raised the standard of health and safety which was spontaneously recognised and followed by the best and most humane employers of labour. In all our factory legislation the humane employer, if I may use an Aristotelian phrase, has always been the canon, measure, and standard of health and safety which the State as a State may wisely prescribe and safely enforce. But there has never been a single step taken of which it has not been predicted by its opponents that the next advance would be fatal to British industry in its competition in the open markets of the world. I think it may be worth while to show the House that that is not so. Curiously enough, since this debate was adjourned last Tuesday, in The Times on Thursday morning I happened casually to cast my eye over the report of the annual meeting of a company whose name is not altogether unfamiliar in the House, I mean that of Messrs. Kynoch, which happened to be held in Birmingham on the previous day. The chairman of the company, I need not mention his name, presided, and after denouncing what he called the craze for education, which, as he said in his epigrammatic language, "spoiled good workmen in order to make bad and superfluous managers," he proceeded to discuss the peculiar burthens from which British industry suffered. He said that the first burthen was the constant interference with methods and management now introduced by Parliament and local boards and he proceeded—
"They were inspected and hampered to death at every step. What economies could be effected if the manufacturer could carry on his business free from local boards and by-laws, free from sanitary inspectors, free from smoke inspectors, free from chemical inspectors, free from School Board inspectors, free from Home Office inspectors and factory inspectors—free, in fact, from the whole brood of officials who not being producers themselves, lived on the produce of manufacturing industry and strangled it."
That is the sort of thing which actually at this time of day is believed and uttered and applauded in Birmingham. I have only one observation to make about it. I have no doubt that we shall hear an explanation from the Under Secretary to the Home Department, but as an independent and detached critic, I have

641
only one observation to make, and it is this, that while the chairman of this company does not appear to be aware that the regulations in countries with which we are in acute competition in the labour markets of the world are far more drastic than our own, as regards the age and period of employment and as regards the standard of education required, it is equally true that we ourselves, so far as the evidence goes, have not suffered, but that, on the contrary, leaving outside all higher and wider considerations, our industrial population is an infinitely more efficient productive machine than it was six or seven years ago. In those days women and children worked for unlimited hours by day and night; children in the large majority of our mines and factories were little better than beasts of burden, uncared for and untaught; the most ordinary sanitary safeguards were uniformly neglected, and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the whole system was a vast sacrifice of human life. What would Great Britain have been to-day as an industrial and producing country but for the labours of Lord Shaftesbury and those who have succeeded him in this factory legislation? We should have a stunted, sickly, ignorant population, wholly unfitted to hold its own in the growing stress and strain of industrial competition, and it is because this Bill takes a new and substantial step in the direction of reform that I shall support it in this and in all its subsequent stages, for I believe that by means of it we shall proceed one degree farther in the path which it is as much our interest as our duty to travel.
*MR. NANNETTIsaid he must express his regret at the first portion of the first clause. The whole desire of the Home Secretary seemed to be to take the onus upon himself instead of placing it upon the inspectors, and that would in his opinion be a serious blot upon the Bill. In dangerous trades, such as that of the docker, he apprehended, many occasions arose where dangerous plant ought to be removed or protected. This power, he submitted, ought to be in the hands of the inspector, but he found that when attention was called to anything
642
of the kind the matter had to be referred to the Home Secretary, and pass through a system of red tape, and during all that time more accidents might occur. Everything should be done to minimise the chance of accidents occurring, and the best way of doing so would be to have inspectors on the spot, and when such a thing occurred they should have the power to have the plant removed, and to secure satisfactory conditions of employment. He also thought it was unfortunate that the local inquiries should be handed over to the local authorities, for the reason that in the majority of cases the members of the local authorities were precisely those people who were interested in the industries which were very often the subject of inquiry. In these days of trusts and public companies it would be difficult to find some member of a local authority that would not be interested in frustrating the intentions of the Bill. He thought therefore that the Bill should be left in the hands of the inspectors to carry out. Another matter to which he desired to refer he regretted to say was not mentioned in the Bill. The men who worked on the quays and docks were men who had no safeguards against the dangers which beset them in their work, and who, in his opinion, ought to come within the operations of the Act. In the case of these men it would be necessary for immediate action to be taken, because defective tackle, defective planks, and defective machinery had been the cause of a great many accidents. It should be in the power of the inspector, who could only now report, to order the removal of any defective tackle, defective planks, or defective gangways; he should be vested with authority to compel the employer, the stevedore, or the captain to remove the cause of so much loss of file and accident. From a Return which was issued in 1900, he found that out of 74,340 of these men no less than 4,958 had been either maimed or lost their lives. There was surely some reason for a prompt remedy for such a state of things when so many people met with an untimely death, and it was the duty of the framers of the Bill to do everything in their power to

643
minimise the causes of those accidents. So far as he had read the Bill, however, there was nothing to meet the case of the dockers and coal-porters. Something should be done to secure the safety of these people. He asked why the recommendations contained in the Report on the Causation and Prevention of Accidents issued by the Home Office were not adopted and put in the Bill by the Home Secretary. It was an appalling Report, and the suggestions made by the two factory experts—Messrs. Maitland and Erant—should have found a prompt acceptance by the right hon. Gentleman. He appealed to him to adopt the recommendations, and make the prevention of accidents as perfect as possible in the interest of the dock workers.
Another matter to which he desired to call attention was what was called the "particulars clauses." On this point the dockers made serious complaint. These men were sent out to work at perhaps a shilling a ton, and they were compelled to take the word of the captain or the stevedore who employed them as to the number of tons that had to be dealt with. In consequence of that system, it was alleged there had been many cases in which the men employed had been defrauded of a portion of their honest earnings. The Lord Mayor of Dublin had brought the matter before the Port and Docks Board in order that something might be done for these men, but the Port and Docks Board had no power to assist them. He submitted that the dockers should have the same privilege granted to them as was granted to the textile workers and the miners. In those trades the men had a tally-man to keep tally of the work they did, and were paid accordingly. Why should not the same concession be given to the dockers and the coal porters? It showed a most unfortunate state of law when men could be told to load and unload a ship, and had to take the bare word of the captain or stevedore as to the number of tons to be moved. It was only owing to the exertions of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and himself that what might have been a most serious strike had been averted on many occasions, so dissatisfied were the men with the present state of things, and that was only done by their promising to bring
644
the matter before the House, and endeavour to have the grievance remedied. He asked the Home Secretary to give this point his sympathetic attention. With reference to the laundries clause, so far as Ireland was concerned there was no demand for their inspection, and consequently he would oppose their inclusion under the provisions of the Bill. He could see no reason why religious institutions should be brought within the provisions of the Bill. These institutions were not factories in the real sense of the word. Moreover, they were not insanitary; the hours, after deducting the time devoted to devotion, meals, and recreation, were much less than the prescribed number, and there was really no necessity for the application of the provisions of the Factory Acts to these reforming institutions. In conclusion, he desired to state that he shared with other Members the belief that the Home Secretary had brought forward a Bill which, when amended in the directions that had been indicated, would meet with the approval of all classes. As far as he could see, it was an honest endeavour to meet the requirements of the case, and he hoped that in Committee the blots to which he had referred would be removed, so that there might be reported to the House a Bill which should be worthy of the Home Secretary and a benefit to the workers of the country.
SIR WILLIAM CODDINGTON: I do not propose to go into the clauses of this Bill, as I understand they will more properly be considered in Committee, but I wish to call the attention of the Home Secretary to what I consider and is considered by many of my friends to be an unnecessary interference with and a harassing of the textile industries, namely, the multiplication of inspectors. In the town that I represent, which is almost entirely devoted to textile industries, there are three resident inspectors, each of whom has the right to enter the mills at any time, and to look into the departments which he represents. One is the inspector for "particulars," another is the inspector for "time," and the third is the inspector for "ventilation." In addition to these, there is a lady inspector

645
who comes from London. She comes only now and then, and has, I believe, to do with the sanitary arrangements of the workshops. These sanitary arrangements are well and carefully attended to by the medical officer of health, who also is practically an inspector, and has the right of entering the works exactly as the factory inspectors have. Therefore, there are three inspectors doing work which one man could do equally well. In fact, I believe that one man would do it better than three, because he would know the various managers, and he would be able to talk to them and arrange matters in a way which is impossible with three men, because each man has a different mind and a different mode of procedure. It is intolerable that where one man would suffice three men should have the power of going into the works at any time of the day, interfering with and absorbing the managers' time, and of taking proceedings for offences in regard to which, if there was only one inspector, there would be no necessity to take proceedings, because one man would not have the same interest in getting convictions as is the case when there are three inspectors. Competition, especially in the textile industries, is growing every day. We have competing with us not only Europe, but America. America is increasing her textile industries at an enormous rate, and in that country very little interference is allowed with the working of the factories. We do not complain at all of the Factories Acts; we are quite willing to see them carried out in as perfect and as fair a manner as possible; but we do say that the easier you can carry them out the better it is, not only for the proprietors of the mills, but also for the Home Office itself. I think that if the Home Secretary could see his way to modify this enormous tax upon the country of having so many more men than are required for the work, it would be a great relief to the industries which I particularly represent, and at the same time it would be an advantage to the country, because the less you interfere with trade, so long as you take care that the people are protected in every way, the better it is for the nation at large.
*MR. JOHN BURNS: Not for the first time the present Home Secretary
646
has inaugurated his accession to a new office by introducing a new legislative project, and I venture to think that if Ministers in charge of certain other Departments during the last three or four years had signalised their appointments to office by similar legislative activity, the Ministerial Bench would be more popular in the House, and the Conservative Government more popular in the country than is now the case. As one who has taken an interest in factory legislation, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Bill—not because it is a large Bill, for it is not a very large Bill, neither is it a very small Bill; if I used the language of the Regulation of Fish Bill brought in last year, I should describe it as an "immature" Bill—but such as the Bill is, I am reasonably content with it. And when the Bill is connected, not before time, with a Consolidation Bill, I am more pleased with it than I otherwise should be. It is evident, however, from the remarks of the last speaker, that the Bill is not to have the smooth passage that some of us expected. On the contrary, I interpret the hon. Member's speech as the premonitory symptom of an opposition in the Standing Committee, and I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will harden his heart against suggestions of the kind we have just heard. But we must be careful that this Bill is not praised too much. I believe that it is a useful measure, and that it is the logical complement of Bills which have preceded it, but I should be sorry to regard it as a final measure of factory legislation. If it is so conceived by Members on the other side of the House, all I can say is that they are living in a fool's paradise, and will certainly soon be awakened. It is an encouraging fact that factory legislation is being kept out of the arena of party politics more and more every year. That is a very good sign, because it shows that public opinion in the interests of public safety is harmonising the conflicting interests both of labour and of the manufacturers, and that, without desiring to hamper unnecessarily industry, trade, or commerce, there is a general understanding that England ought to be in the forefront of all the manufacturing countries of the world in its charter of industry and in sanitation and ventilation. But I

647
cannot at this juncture refrain from reminding the House of Commons what happened in 1894–95, when the Bill of the late Home Secretary was introduced. The newspapers, especially the technical journals, were most amusing reading. We were told that we were harassing industry, that we were worrying commerce, that trade would be killed; the air was full of vamped-up fears and melancholy forebodings as to the future of British trade and commerce if that particular Bill passed. I said then, and I say now, that the fact is that all industries which lag behind the best employers ought to go under. Anything that good or bad Factory Acts can do to sustain those industries will be ineffectual. What is more, I believe that any industry which is to be kept on its feet only by relaxing Factory Acts and low sanitary conditions cannot last for more than a year or two at the very most. The fact is that the factories which go in advance of the Factory Acts in sanitation, ventilation, safety, hours, and wages are the factories which are able to beat their competitors at home and to dominate the markets abroad. Objection to Factory Acts symptomises commercial incompetency and industrial inefficiency. I believe it was the Factory Acts alone that gave Lancashire its worldwide supremacy in the cotton industry for sixty or seventy years. I believe that it was the fact that in Lancashire the system was based upon a six working days per week of nine hours each, and working under reasonable sanitation, ventilation, and inspection that enabled the manufacturers of that county to put their house in order, and by virtue of the organisation that Factory Acts and fixed conditions imposed hold their own against the competitors in all other countries in the world. Where you find factory owners and employers of labour objecting to factory legislation on the ground that it goes too far, there you generally find commercial incompetency showing itself. The most profitable industries just now are those which are conducted a long way in advance of the Factory Acts, and the object of factory legislation should be to make the worst employers "toe the line." That would be the best thing for the workmen, and would be advantageous
648
to the country. I well remember some time ago the Member for the Bordesley Division and myself wrestling with the question of laundries upon the Grand Committee. Experience, however, teaches, and all those predictions about laundries have been falsified. There never has been a trade in which the profits have been so good all round as in the case of laundries since 1895. I would remind the House of what was said in regard to bakehouses. It was quite pathetic to listen to the deputations of master bakers as to what would have happened if underground bakehouses were abolished. I have not received a single complaint, and I do not believe other hon. Members have received many complaints in regard to bakehouses either above or underground as to the possible danger of the introduction of this particular clause, and I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will stand by his Bill in that respect. There are some hon. Members, of whom the hon. Member who spoke last is an example, who are under the impression that we have gone far enough in regard to factory inspection. If there is, as he states, overlapping and too many inspectors in Lancashire, then let us get rid of it. If we have four persons to do one or two men's work, that should be a hint to the Home Office to reorganise the supervision of factories, and perhaps by heavier penalties reduce the cost and number of inspectorates; but it is not an argument against the passing of this Act.
I have one other fact to mention. I have been making a statistical investigation into the question of the lengthening of life in the trade to which I belong. During the period in which the Factory and Workshops Acts have been operating in this country the average life of the working engineer has increased remarkably, during the last forty years by ten years. By that I mean that whereas the average age of the engineer forty years ago at death was from forty-two to forty-four years, now the average age at death is from fifty-two to fifty-five years. This great improvement is due to some cause. The fact is the lower death rate the higher wage, the greater and steadier profit the increased employment all testify to value of Factory

649
Acts. In my own trade, I believe it is largely due to raising the age of child labour, to the gradual diminution of overtime, to employers' liability and compensation, to workmen's legislation, and, above all, to the Factory Acts, ventilation, and inspection. I think it is a great advantage to the nation that ten years should have been added to an engineer's life after he has had so many years of experience. I think this is an asset of the Factory Acts which the House of Commons ought to cheerfully welcome and endeavour to extend. I am glad to see that in this Bill the arbitration farce is practically abolished. I congratulate the Home Secretary upon doing, in this Bill what I am sorry to say I was denounced six or seven years ago for advocating, and I am very glad that the Home Secretary has come almost entirely my way. The effect of this proposal is practically to abolish arbitration with regard to dangerous trades. But while I welcome this instalment I cannot see why he wants to do it in this way. He wants arbitration dispensed with, and by the order of the Secretary of State there is to be an inquiry, and the report is to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons for six weeks, and if it is not seriously challenged it is to become law.
*MR. RITCHIE: Not the Report, but the decision.
*MR. JOHN BURNS: Then the decision is to lie upon the Table for six weeks. In my opinion six weeks is too long, and I do not see why you should have an inquiry at all. The most competent investigator is the factory inspector who is located in the district. He sees all the facts, and he is not particularly anxious to worry or harass the employer. I believe that the majority of employers and the majority of workmen would be quite content to accept the decision of the factory inspector, without a long inquiry as to what was or was not a dangerous trade. I cannot help appealing to the House of Commons for increased safety in this respect for this reason. I do not know whether hon. Members look over the casualty list or the butcher's bill of labour in this country. I want to show to the House the necessity there is for inspection. Last year 5,000 workmen were killed by industrial accidents alone. That is more
650
than the actual number of men killed by bullets in twenty months of the war in South Africa. The total number of fatal accidents last year was no less than 5,000. But beyond this, notwithstanding our present imperfect standard of accidents, no less than 100,000 men sustained very serious accidents. I do not want to point out to the House that so long as we have five battalions of men sent to a premature death and three army corps of men seriously injured every year, there is strong reason for Factory Acts and for inspection. I am a member of the Hearts of Oak Society, which is the only society which goes seriously into the question of accidents. Men engaged in dangerous trades are excluded, but of the 206,000 men in the society in 1897, 11,000 were injured and a large number killed. If we apply that number to the army of workmen affected by this Bill we shall have 6,000 men killed and nearly {half a million of accidents in which the men were disabled for more than a week, and when our reports show an increase, a startling increase, in industrial accidents, there is need for better prevention. Add to this the lead poisoning and anthrax disablements, that is the reason why we should have stricter factory legislation than we now have.
I now come to the dangerous trades. When a certain newspaper in London some years ago started a crusade against "phossy jaw" we were told that this kind of thing could not be prevented, that it must go on, and could not be stopped. I have here an advertisement issued by one of the largest match manufacturing firms, whose name I will not give, for they do not deserve an advertisement. I find that after five years of this crusade they state in their advertisement that there will be no more "phossy jaw" and poisoning of their workpeople, and that they are now able to make matches which will not be injurious either to those who use them or make them. If it had not been for the agitation started by the Star and the Morning Leader we should not have had this reform. But it was a reform easily carried out but for the ignorance of vested interest. I should like to know why the Home Secretary wishes to upset our standard of calculation in regard to accidents. There is really no need for it.

651
The present period of notification of injury is long enough, and I believe that all accidents disabling a man for work should be notified. The knowledge of the figures will make for safety. I consider that this alteration will be a serious incentive to the negligent employer to be more negligent, and will prevent some good employers from being still more careful, and I trust that the Bill will be improved in that particular.
I now come to a lamentable omission in this Factory Bill with regard to the docks. My position in life has placed me closely in contact with the dock labourers of this great city, and nothing affects me more than to go to a mass meeting of dock labourers, either in the evening or on a Sunday morning, and to ask some 4,000 or 5,000 dock labourers to vote on any resolution by show of hands. If hon. Members would only go to a dockers' meeting at Liverpool or at Glasgow, and ask the stevedores or dock labourers to assent to or vote against any resolution by show of hands, they will be struck by the large number of mutilated fingers and hands and twisted wrists which they will see, and a more sickening spectacle I have never witnessed. Many of these accidents are preventable, and they largely destroy the efficiency of the workmen. Go to almost any hospital or workhouse in the East End of London, and you will find quite thirty or forty dock labourers incapable of following their employment through injuries. These strong young men are subject to these preventable accidents, and they consequently become a great burden to the ratepayers. I think all hon. Members will agree with me that in this matter prevention is better than cure. We ought to protect them where we can, and then they would not become a burden on the rates, and we should get more recruits for the Militia from the dock districts. The docks should be scheduled by the Home Office as a dangerous trade, because the proportion of men injured in the dock industry is larger than in the lead poisoning industries, wool sorting, mines, or railways.
If great loss of life is a reason for making any industry a dangerous trade, then you ought to do this in regard to the dock industry. If the Home Secretary will come with me down to the Poplar Hospital
652
and see for himself those four accidents per hour which are brought there mainly from the docks and riverside industries, he will see a reason why the dock industry should be registered as a dangerous trade. The dock labourer works under a great disability. If he is working on the jetty connected with the ship he is unloading by a gangway, then he comes under the Acts, but if even a bigger vessel was being unloaded under more dangerous conditions in midstream, that ship ceases-to be a factory and workshop for the purpose of compensation under the Factory Acts. I suggest that the Home Secretary should take his courage in both hands and declare that for all the purposes of the Factory Acts and for workmen's compensation a ship should, be a "factory" when it was being loaded or unloaded in a harbour, in midstream, in a canal, or alongside a jetty or wharf. The admirable report of dock accidents which has been made by Mr. Maitland and Mr. Erant should induce the right hon. Gentleman to make two or three of the present factory inspectors special dock inspectors, in order to concentrate and confine all their energies upon docks. Anyone who goes to Woolwich, Pembroke, Chatham, or Portsmouth, and considers the number of workmen employed in a Royal, dockyard, where the chains are tested, the gangways inspected, and where much of the gear and tackle is subjected to periodical inspection, will find that in the Royal dockyards the proportion of men injured and killed per thousand is enormously less than in the ordinary docks, where the testing of tackle and gear and other precautions are not taken. The inspector on p. 91 of the 1900. Report confirms this by saying that "at some docks the accidents due to breakage of chains have been almost avoided." We ought to have all the shipbuilding yards and docks subjected to the same conditions of tests, inspection, and examination, and that is what I hope will be done. The inspector should be allowed on the spot to condemn defective gear and tackle. If the right hon. Gentleman does this I shall personally thank the Home Secretary on behalf of the dockers of London.
Another point with which I wish to deal

653
is concerning Clause 9, which deals with sanitation, and which gives powers to the local authority. If it happens to be a good sanitary authority I do not object, but if it is a bad one it will be most objectionable. Supposing we have a district council in a district where there is a very large factory employing 1,000 or 1,500 men, and supposing that the owner of that large factory happens to be the chairman of that district council. Perhaps one of his own foremen might be the chairman of the sanitary committee. Are we to allow that big factory owner under Clause 9 to dominate the sanitary and hygienic conditions, not only of his own factory, but of other factories in that district? With regard to home work, I do wish the Home Secretary would take courage and abolish it altogether. That would solve a very knotty problem. Home work is difficult to control and very difficult to follow in the East End of London. It is practically impossible to control it, and it is very difficult to watch. I notice that there are no overtime restrictions in this Bill. There is no limit to Saturday afternoon work, and Sunday work is allowed under certain conditions, and that I regard as a blot on the Bill.
I come now to one of the chief blots on this Bill, and it is contained in Clause 26. I am very sorry to say that I cannot see my way to agree with some of my Irish friends upon this clause. I wish to deal with this question as it affects laundries. I am not ashamed to say that I am the son of a washerwoman. Two of my sisters used to be ironers in the laundry which now does the laundry work for the House of Commons. Therefore, I can look upon the question of laundries from a practical standpoint. From my own personal experience I can speak of the struggles and the worry of the brutal overwork in domestic laundries to which washerwomen are subjected, and I should rejoice to hear to-morrow that every small domestic laundry was abolished altogether. It is mistaken sympathy for the Home Secretary to buttress up these small and insanitary laundries. They are dying, and the sooner they die the better for everybody concerned. Some laundries are now making from ten to twenty per cent. profit by overworking these women. I am sorry to say that only too many
654
of the women working at the washtub and ironing trade and the calendering machine have their willingness to work exploited by lazy sons and drunken husbands, and loafers who live on the industry of their sisters and wives. Let the right hon. Gentleman look upon the laundry as a definite profession and a well-organised industry, and a profitable trade, and let him apply to the washing of linen the same six working days per week, of nine hours each, and the same conditions of labour as are applied to the less profitable Lancashire textile industry. If he does that he will earn the everlasting gratitude of the son of a London washerwoman.
I now come to another defect in this Bill. Before dealing with it, however, I wish to say a few words with regard to conventual laundries. The hon. Member for Waterford said that this clause was a serious one so far as his co-religionists were concerned. His objection, therefore, is only on the ground of religion. [No, no.] I am not going to be embroiled in a religious controversy, because it is generally abortive. The hon. Member for Waterford objected to this clause, and opposed it on the ground that it was defeated in 1895. I think we ought to be clear in our facts upon this point. The laundries clause was opposed in 1895, and conventual laundries were treated in this way because the Factory Bill was hustled through just prior to the dissolution of Parliament, and that was mainly responsible for the way in which these institutions were treated. I want to point out to the hon. Member for Waterford, whom I am very sorry not to see in his place, that he was not quite accurate when he said that no case was made out for this clause. I would remind the hon. Member for Waterford that there are laundries and laundries, there are charitable institutions and charitable institutions, and there are philanthropic laundries and philanthropic laundries. If we give way upon conventual laundries to one religious body, then we shall be driven to give way in the case of other laundries for religious and other reasons. General Booth tried that game on with regard to his refuges and what was the result? Why, that his refuges, shelters, and philanthropic institutions, which were carried on in perfect good faith for a good cause, and

655
with a religious as well as philanthropic motive, became a pest and a nuisance to the neighbourhood in which they were stationed, and the County Council and the Borough Council were compelled to bring General Booth within the law in regard to sanitation and ventilation. I want to call the attention of the Irish Members to the fact that it is not only the refuge laundries we are dealing with. I have here a list of eighty-two institutions, all of which are claiming and will claim exemption. Supposing you give that exemption to one set of laundries, what will happen? Hon. Members will recollect the celebrated Zierenberg case, in which the hon. Member for Northampton instituted a prosecution against a religious institution which was taking money from the public for philanthropic objects. Mr. Zierenberg posed as a philanthropist, and claimed to be a religious benefactor. He had a laundry in connection with his home, and how did he run that laundry? There was no inspection. He got seventy or eighty girls there, and some of them were working from eighteen hours to twenty hours, and in some cases even thirty hours, continuously. He actually got girls to stoke the boilers and look after the engines; they were badly fed and got no holidays, and they were kept in a shocking and disgraceful condition. I think that if you were to inspect some of those institutions which five years ago protested against the Factory Acts being extended to them, you might find one or two Zierenberg cases. I do not think that we should give any man, whatever his religion may be, an opportunity of doing what Zierenberg did. If the conventual laundries are kept in good condition there will be no need for interference. If they are not kept under these sanitary conditions, then I say that, whether they are conventual or philanthropic laundries, or whatever religion they belong to, they ought to be made to "toe the line." Let me point out the inconsistency of some hon. Members from Ireland on this point. Whenever we have had the Home Office Vote what have we always found the Irish Members doing? They have always worked for the humanising of prison life, and making it conform as far
656
as possible with the conditions outside. When the Home Office Vote is taken the Irish Members have always worked for the humanising of prison life, and it seems to be rather inconsistent on their part to endeavour to maintain these religious institutions in their present condition. The hon. Member for Water-ford gave his case away when he said there were certain industrial schools which were inspected by the medical officer and the sanitary inspector of the district in regard to infectious disease and other purposes. Well, if that is not opposed, and the inmates are young Catholics, it seems to me that what they submit to there they ought to submit to with regard to these refuge homes for fallen women. Hon. Members want to differentiate between Catholic industrial schools and five or six conventual laundries used as refuges for fallen women. I want to point out that that is inconsistent. I know the type the hon. Member referred to. I am sorry to think that so long as drink ravages our male and female population in some classes there are sure to be a certain number of people sunk deplorably low. I am for reclaiming these people, whether it be by the County Council or benevolent agencies, but the worst way of reclaiming fallen women, however low they may be sunk, is to put them in institutions where they may be subjected to harsh treatment, and which may go unchecked for lack of knowledge which inspection alone can give. The more humanely you treat them the more likely you are to succeed. The only points on which there could be conflict of opinion would arise between the person in charge of the refuge and the inspector; but the inspector would not be likely to go in the direction of imposing conditions of greater severity on the inmates, whilst he would not interfere with their discipline except where such was desirable. I believe that the Irish Members, whose motives and intentions are good, have been inconsistent in asking that conventual laundries should be withdrawn from the Bill. I am nothing if not a practical man, and I have here the special report on laundries. I find that some of the lady superiors of homes for fallen women in Ireland were utterly indifferent on the question of inspection. This is what the inspector found—

657
"Visited two convent institutions where most children are employed. Found hours moderate; no dangerous machinery; sanitation good. The superioress of one has no objection to go under the Factory Act. In the second, superioress indifferent to inspection, but dislikes "Government rules;" hours worked within those of Factory Act."
I come to the laundry proprietors in Ireland who are of the same religious views. The inspector says—
"All the proprietors I visited in Ireland are opposed to inclusion, if the convent laundries are exempted. They complain of the advantages which such laundries would then possess; for instance, exemption from the cost of fencing machinery, and exemptions from the regulations affecting child labour. The latter point was emphasised by the managers of the Rathfarnham and Edmonstown laundries."
I say with all due respect that if they can only compete with private enterprise outside their walls by leaving their machinery unfenced and by neglecting the sanitary regulations with regard to the labour of the young, the sooner that philanthropy is done away with the better for the children and everybody else. In the Factories Report for 1900, I find the inspector says—
"If all the conditions of work are ideal, acquiescence in the general law (which requires a minimum standard far short of ideal) could not be troublesome, while the example set by a body which holds itself superior to the ordinary commercial public would be of far-reaching value.
"Carrying on his business in a law-abiding manner, and without making any high-sounding claim to philanthropy, thereby incidentally benefitting his employees, he sees other establishments in which the national standard respecting certain elementary conditions is being ignored with impunity.
"It certainly offends his sense of justice when he learns that the offenders being philanthropists enjoy immunity from the law.
I say ditto to the factory inspector. I join with the private laundry owners in London, Ireland, and elsewhere, who are frequently hit hard in the competition in their industry because of work done in religious and charitable institutions. Frequently charity covers a multitude of industrial sins. I would urge my Irish friends not to press the point, and they will find an inspector appointed, most probably a lady of the Catholic faith, and the law will be enforced with all due respect to the religious susceptibilities of those who carry on these homes. It has been so with regard to industrial schools, the prison inspection of Catholics,
658
the supervision of schools controlled by nuns, and the experience of France justifies such control; and in the case of refuge laundries they will be brought up to the best level without irritation to anybody. If they are not able to compete with outside laundries their remedy is not in overworking the girls, not in keeping the laundries in bad sanitary condition, and not in having machinery unfenced, but by appealing to the benevolent for proper sanitary equipment. I sincerely trust that the laundries will be compelled by this very good clause to be properly equipped. I have earned the right to speak on this question, and do it with every consideration for those who differ from me. I have no religious prejudice against convents, because I put all these institutions, of whatever religion, under one head and make them toe the line. I have no animus against Catholics, I have none of the rival prejudices of a competing sect. I am a respectable Freethinker, and I am not, therefore, bigoted.
I leave that point, and I come now, Sir, to an important clause in the Bill with regard to underground labour. I ask the Home Secretary to deal with this seriously. The passing of the underground bakehouses clause in 1895 has done an enormous amount of good in improving the health of the working baker. It has created a great improvement in their industry, and what is more, the masters do not object. But why confine it to bakehouses? This clause should be so extended as to include kitchens of hotels and restaurants. Personally I do not differentiate between bakehouses where a loaf of bread is cooked and an underground kitchen in which an omelet, an entree, or a dinner is prepared for Members of this House when they dine outside. If the Home Secretary is inclined to inspect, let him go through the hotels and restaurants in the Strand and Soho, and see the filthy conditions in which some of your swell dinners are cooked in these underground places. I once worked as a boy in an underground bakery, and that is why I am in favour of the abolition of underground bakeries. But the worst underground bakehouse is sanitation itself compared with some of your underground restaurant cookhouses.

659
What proof have I of that? I have the Master Bakers and Confectioners' Journal of 5th June this year, which says—
"When the Strand and every one of the West-End thoroughfares are dotted every few yards with restaurants having underground kitchens which the labours of Hercules himself could not cleanse nor any amount of sanitation make healthy, if the persons who denounce underground bakehouses are sincere, let them have a fling at underground kitchens, and they need not walk many yards from Charing Cross to find enough nastiness to nauseate them in real deadly fact. Public health really demands that this should not be allowed to continue."
I rarely dine at restaurants; I hardly ever dine at hotels, yet I am anxious to prevent Members of Parliament who do indulge in these luxuries from either serious illness or premature death. In the interest of my parliamentary colleagues I do ask the Home Secretary to place restaurant and hotel kitchens which are underground in precisely the same position as regards sanitation and ventilation as underground bakehouses now are. He can do this because hotels are very profitable. The men are over-worked, and the sanitary conditions are simply indescribable. I sincerely hope the Home Secretary will bring these kitchens within the Bill. I have one convincing argument why they should be brought in. I was talking to a man whose name must be withheld, because the mention of his name would be ruin to his industry. His business is to clear restaurants, hotels, and bakehouses of rats, vermin, and insects of every description. He said to me—
"If the bakehouse clause was applied to hotel and restaurant kitchens, my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone. If you were to see the places I visit in pursuit of my trade you would be positively staggered at the indescribable filth I have to deal with. I find this in pursuit of my occupation as rat catcher, vermin killer, and insect destroyer."
"Well," I said, "you are really the embodiment of disinterestedness, you are the soul of public spirit." He replied—
"Better that my trade should perish and that my occupation should disappear than that these conditions should continue."
On this subject I agree with him, and this Bill should be made the medium of preventing such things.
I hope I have been practical in my criticism. In the proper place upstairs I shall endeavour to give expression to my
660
objections. I hope I shall in respect of hotel and restaurant kitchens, at least, have every Member on my side.
*MR. JAMES KENYONthanked the hon. Member for Battersea for the great compliment he had paid his county with respect to the way the Factory Act had been carried out. He was astonished that the hon. Member was trying to do away with, what, he ventured to think, was a most important employment for poor people in this country. The hon. Member had talked about the conditions in the East End of London, but it was wrong to judge of home industries by the experiences there. The same conditions did not prevail in the provinces, where this class of employment provided work for a great many people, and it was a very great help to them. Some of them were in rather delicate health and not able to do a full day's work. This Bill, like many of the Factory Acts, was too vague. The bulk of the employers he was quite certain were anxious to conform to the conditions of the Factory Acts, but he was confident that they would be much better if plain definitions were given. He pointed out that Clause 15 was particularly vague, for here they were placed entirely at the mercy of the inspector, who might be a very reasonable man, a very decent fellow, or he might be a faddist; and the Lord preserve them from the faddist. For instance, in the Rivers Pollution Bill, they had never clearly defined what was meant by "pollution." They never had a standard of pollution. Let the Bill tell them what they were to do, and they would do it. They had heard references to being "humane." The great bulk of men in Lancashire were humane; and the employers would be very much ashamed not to carry out any sanitary regulations which were asked of them. The great bulk of the mills in Lancashire were something of which they had a right to be proud. He believed the inspectors as a body were able men who did their work well, but some of them were a little wanting in politeness. He mentioned the case of a friend who showed an inspector over his works, and said to him when the inspection was over, "I hope you have nothing to find fault with."

661
The inspector replied, "I have not come here to pay compliments." He thought a little politeness would tend to lessen the irritation which was sometimes felt in carrying out the regulations under the Acts.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I would like to draw attention to one matter that has not received much attention up to the present moment. This Bill is connected with the Consolidation Bill, and if the Consolidation Bill passes, the House will hardly be asked again for years to undertake factory reform. Therefore I think it is essential at the present moment that such reforms as are in accord with public opinion should be undertaken by the Standing Committee on Trade and introduced in this Bill. We have had five years experience of the Act brought forward by my right hon. friend the Member for East Fife, and that experience has shown that in certain particulars it was not altogether satisfactory in regard to laundries, home work, and docks. I agree with the Members for Dublin and Battersea that more activity is required on the part of the Home Secretary in dealing with the dockers' question. With regard to labour in docks, the administration of the Home Office has been very limited since 1895, and it will be well worthy of consideration when the Bill comes into Committee whether such labour should be included among dangerous employments and subjected to special rules. At present a dock labourer at work in loading or unloading a ship attached to a quay comes under the Factory Act, but when he is doing similar work on the same ship in mid-stream he is excluded from that Act. This is an anomaly which ought not to exist. The Workmen's Compensation Act followed the same lines as the Factory Act, and a labourer would be entitled to compensation if injured in working on a ship attached to a quay, but not if injured in doing similar work on the same ship, if the ship were in mid-stream. I trust that the attention of the Home Secretary will be directed to this anomaly, which arose out of the compromise with the shipowners in 1895, and that he will give favourable consideration to its amendment in Committee.
662
In my opinion, the chief blot in the Bill is that it does not in any way deal with the question of overtime allowed in certain industries. We had hoped that the Bill would deal with overtime in the sense of diminishing it. In 1895 the hours of overtime were reduced, and I believe that public opinion, and the employers themselves, are in favour of a further diminution of overtime. The chief inspector said that overtime might be abolished altogether except in regard to work on perishable articles in certain trades; it would be a simple matter of trade arrangement. The other question to which I wish to refer is that of home work. The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to think that it would be impossible to abolish home work altogether; and I agree that at the present time it is out of the question; but what is possible is the improvement of the conditions of home work. The propositions in the Bill regarding home and domestic workshops tend in a wrong direction, and I think makes the conditions worse. In the keeping of a proper register and proper lists there is, however, considerable improvement. The most important matter connected with this question is the control of home work. We have an immense number of regulations for the control of what I would call the aristocracy of labour; but I have been surprised to find, in reading through the reports of the inspectors to the Home Secretary, only one reference, of two or three lines, to any question connected with home work or domestic workshops. The greater part of these reports is devoted to textile trades, and more attention ought to be given to the inspection of domestic workshops in the sweating dens of the east end of London and in other large towns. I was very glad to hear the Home Secretary give a very conciliatory answer to my right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean, who was asked to withdraw his particular Amendment on this question, with the assurance from the Home Secretary that he would give the matter favourable consideration in Committee. I trust that when we get into Committee hon. Members will be allowed a free hand in order to strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's position on this question of home work. We want to know

663
where the work given out to be done at home is sent to, and under what conditions; and that can only be done by registered lists and periodical supervision. The Bill follows in many of its provisions the policy of the Act introduced by Mr. Matthews in 1891, and leaves with the local authorities a considerable amount of responsibility for the inspection of factories and workshops. I do not want to say a word against local authorities, but it is quite certain that in rural districts and small towns they had no desire or intention to carry out their duties in this respect. I thought, in regard to this matter, that we had a promise that it would be carefully considered, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to reverse the policy of still leaving in the hands of the local bodies the duties of inspection. I trust that when the Bill gets into Committee we will be able to improve it, as was done in the case of the Bills of 1891 and 1895.
MR. RENSHAW: I approach the consideration of this Bill not only from the point of view of an employer of labour, but from that of the local authority. It seems to me that in recent factory legislation, whether it came from this side of the House or from hon. Gentlemen opposite, there has been a determined endeavour to transfer the cost of factory inspection from the Imperial Exchequer, at all events to some extent, on to the shoulders of the local authorities. It is against that policy that I wish to make my protest to-night. The duty of factory inspection was a duty laid on the State, and carried out by the State for a large number of years. In the Factory Act of 1878 provision was made by which the administration of the sanitary laws in respect to factories and workshops rested upon the State Factory Inspectors. By the Act of 1891 that was changed in respect to workshops, and was placed on the local authority, while in 1895 it was placed on the Sanitary Committee of the Local Authority. In Scotland we have a Public Health Act, passed as recently as 1897, which gives to the local authority, independently of any factory legislation, very much wider power in respect to inspection and sanitation
664
than are enjoyed by the local authorities either in England or Ireland. Under the Public Health Laws, as they exist at present in Scotland, I believe it is perfectly possible for the sanitary inspection to be carried out effectively and thoroughly, so far as it ought to devolve on the local authority, especially in regard to out-work, workshops, and work-places. But in regard to factory inspection and the sanitation of factories, I still hold that the responsibility rests with the Imperial authorities. The only point of objection I have to the measure now before the House is that it proposes to impose further duties on the local authority in regard to factory administration. The provisions as to the outworkers' lists, which is most complicated, will throw a large amount of labour unnecessarily on the local authorities. These lists ought to be kept, not by the local authorities, but by the employers of labour, and should be open to the sanitary authorities and the factory inspectors. Then, too, duties are to be imposed on the local authority in regard to prohibition of home-work in places injurious to health, which duties are at present discharged by the State factory inspectors; and in regard to abstracts for domestic factories and workshops, and registers of workshops; and according to Clause 17, the already heavily-burdened medical officer is to report specifically on the administration of the Factory Acts in workshops and places, and send a copy of his annual report, or so much as deals with this subject, to the Secretary of State. By the Act of 1895 certain duties were cast on the local authority in respect to the inspection, in factories, of the provision of means of escape from fire. Now, the local authorities in Scotland have no power whatever to provide fire-escapes or any vehicle for the extinction of fire, and, having no machinery for the administration involved in connection with the inspection of fire-escapes, that duty ought not to be imposed upon them, but ought to be discharged by the State, and dealt with by a special bye-law drawn up by the Secretary of State. I think that great danger will result from such a system of dual control, for wherever you have got dual authority you will always have weak administration. I

665
would have it perfectly clearly established, now that we are rightly taking steps towards the consolidation of the factory laws, that the burden should be laid on one man, and that he should be recognised by all the authorities as the one man to take charge of sanitation and factory inspection.
*MR. MATHERsaid it was not often they on that side of the House were able to heartily support legislation proposed from the Government Benches. As a large employer of labour in various industries he could say that this Bill was calculated to remove a considerable amount of the impediments which created difficulty in the relation between employers and employees. There was no intelligent employer in the country who regretted restrictive legislation as to the conditions of work, but there were some portions of the Bill in which the clauses were not sufficiently definite. He agreed with an hon. Member who had spoken that the phraseology would be difficult to understand in some clauses on the part both of employer and the workmen. Clause 5, which was very indefinite, might arrest the application of some new discoveries to many important industries. It placed in the hands of the Home Secretary the right, under regulation, to prohibit the employment of, or modify or limit the period of employment of all persons, or any class of persons, in any manufacture, machinery, process, or description of manual labour certified to be dangerous, and it prohibited the use of any material or process admitted to be dangerous. But there were so many new materials and new processes invented day by day, that if any great obstruction were placed against their use, the developments of science in its application to industry would be discouraged. That was a clause which would be capable of modification in Committee without disturbing the principle underlying it. Take again Sub-section 2 of Clause 15, which said—
"In any room in a factory or workshop in which any process is carried on which renders the floor liable to be wet, adequate means shall be provided for draining off the wet."
But there were many definitions of wet, and of a floor moist to a degree of wetness, and therefore in that respect the Bill required to be amended. In
666
fact, the draftsman of the Bill had no quite seen the importance of many points. Then as to steam boilers; according to Clause 19, every boiler was to be internally and externally examined by a competent engineer at least once every twelve months. Well, he was an engineer, but they had no standard of engineering skill for the inspection of boilers. Under these circumstances he thought the right hon. Gentleman must admit that he should more clearly define what was a "competent engineer." As to the general tenour of the Bill, he believed that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome it as a great step in the right direction and in progressive legislation, to control industries in the interests of both employer and employed. He could say from long observation in many countries where there was the best application of sanitary science, where the greatest care was bestowed, where the largest outlay was made in making the workshops at all times of the year healthy and comfortable to the operatives—there the best work was done, and the best trade was done. He hailed this measure as a distinct step in the right direction for enabling employers of labour to control their industry in the way most of them wished to do. He believed that the chairman of the Birmingham firm whose words had been quoted by his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife stood absolutely alone among the great employers of labour in the United Kingdom in deprecating the interposition of Government in such matters as were included in this Bill, and he was confident that the great majority of employers were quite willing that there should be discreet Government interference to secure for the workers the best results of sanitary science, With regard to dangerous employments, he happened to be connected with an enterprise liable to endanger the workpeople if the greatest care was not employed in the conduct of the business and in the management of the necessary appliances. One of the greatest difficulties with which manufacturers had to deal was the carelessness on the part of the workmen themselves in not adhering to the rules laid down for their safety and benefit, even after the most earnest exhortations had; been addressed

667
to them, both verbally and in printed rules. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make this Bill helpful to employers in inducing or compelling workpeople to take care of themselves, and to bear their share of the burdens. It was of the greatest importance to every industry in the country that these should be conducted under conditions the most perfect for health.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the exact position in which we stand with reference to this Bill, and to the motion consequent upon it, the House will remember that we were disappointed in not obtaining the Bill on Tuesday last. I explained to the House then how convenient it would be to get the Bill on that day, but we were disappointed. I hope, however, that the House will now consent to close the discussion on the Second Reading at such an hour as will enable us before twelve o'clock to take the Second Reading of this Bill, and also of the Factories and Workshops Acts Consolidation Bill. The discussion has been of a very interesting character, but I trust there will be no objection to finishing it before twelve o'clock.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Finance Bill be taken to-night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
MR. HARWOOD: I should like to call the attention of the House to what seems to me a very striking matter in connection with this Bill, and that is the altered tone of the employers of labour in regard to legislation of this character. My father used to tell me that the early Factory Acts were passed in a spirit of revenge, and that it was thought by everyone that they would be injurious to the textile trade; but we have discovered that that is not true, and that factory legislation has been not only good for the workpeople, but also for the employers and for trade generally. Nothing is better for trade than that it should be carried on by healthy workpeople who are not overtaxed. Therefore I say to the Home Secretary that, as an employer of labour myself, I welcome this Bill. I am not speaking at all from the point of view of opposition to it, but I wish to point out a few omissions from it. My hon.
668
friend suggested that there should be some definition of what was sufficient ventilation, but I think it would be very difficult to define a matter of that kind. I think, however, the matter should be under the control of one central authority. Clause 18 will very largely affect trade in my part of the country. It provides that a person shall not be allowed to clean any place under any machinery even when a portion of the machinery remains still. Now I take it, as an amateur lawyer, unless some further explanation is given, that this provision will be extremely awkward and injurious to our trade, and I may say that the operatives and their representatives will feel just as strongly about it, and more so, than I do. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is so. I know the feeling of the operatives as well as he does, and I am not prepared to yield my own opinion in this matter even to such an omniscient authority. Then again with regard to boilers, it is proposed that they should be examined every twelve months. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the universal custom in our part of the country is to examine the boilers during holiday time, and that time may not always come within the twelve months. Therefore I think there should be an extension of time, say, to fourteen months, which would cover the variation of the holidays. We have been reminded by more than one speaker that if this Bill is passed we cannot expect more factory legislation for a long time. That is a perfectly fair and just principle. We cannot expect the House of Commons and the country to give attention to legislation of this kind at short periods, and therefore we have to take great precautions that anything about which we care shall, if possible, be brought in now, because if it is not we may make up our minds that it will not be brought in for a long time to come.
There are two important omissions in this Bill to which I venture to call the attention of the Home Secretary. One has reference to Clause 32 respecting "particulars." The Home Secretary is well aware that in regard to this there has been an agreement come to in one of our largest industries, namely, the weaving industry, after

669
much discussion and difficulty, between employers and employed, which I believe has been laid before the right hon. Gentleman, and I say it would be a thousand pities, when such an agreement has been arrived at, if the opportunity is not taken to bring that agreement within the compass of the Bill. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to embody that agreement in Clause 32, The Other question to which I should like to refer is, perhaps, too utopian to hope for; but still I will put it before the right hon. Gentleman. It is this: there is a strong feeling among people in my part of the country, a stronger feeling probably than the right hon. Gentleman or other Members of this House are aware of, in favour of shortening the working hours on Saturdays. I should like to remind the House that there has been no change in the hours of factory employment for nearly a quarter of a century. As an employer of labour acquainted with the conditions of trade, I know that the strain and intensity of labour have enormously increased, and that the productiveness of labour has increased more than 10 per cent. during the period I have mentioned. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will bear this fact in mind. The hours of labour have been decreased in other industries, and it does seem a reflection on Parliament that the one industry in which women and children are chiefly concerned is the one in which no reduction of hours has been made for a quarter of a century. I venture to assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of intense, domestic sentiment. I can speak for my own part of the country when I say that men and youths engaged in occupations are able to return home on Saturdays at twelve o'clock, while their sisters, wives, and children do not get home till one hour afterwards. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to consider this, because it will reflect on Parliament if the working classes realise that Parliamentary care means the prevention of reforms which would be brought about if the trades were free. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to introduce this much needed and moderate reform into the Bill. There was a ballot as to whether the workpeople would be prepared to give up a proportion of their
670
wages, and the result was a majority of twenty-eight to one in favour of the change. I therefore trust that the present opportunity will be taken to include in this Bill a reform so much desired.
*MR. TAYLOR: Though speaking on the opposite side of the House from the Home Secretary, I desire to join in the chorus of approbation that the Bill of this year is so much better than the Bill of last year. I do not know whether, if we had waited a year longer, we should not have got even a better Bill; but, at all events, several of the proposals in the present Bill are distinct improvements. I agree with my hon. friend that the ventilation proposals are useful, although they might be more useful still. As regards the provision with reference to wet floors, I assume, it does not refer to floors which are merely moist, because there are many branches of manufacture in which the floors must be wet in that sense, and I think words to that effect should be inserted. I do not, of course, refer to pools of water on the floors. Clause 17, which authorises the medical officer of health in a locality to give a specific report on the administration of the Factory Acts in his district, seems to be a most excellent clause. I suppose we may take it as being one of the first fruits of the very excellent appointment of Dr. Arthur Whitelegge as His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories, and I may be permitted to congratulate the Home Office on that appointment. I welcome the introduction of the medical officer of health into the administration of the Factory Acts, though he must not be confused with the certifying factory surgeon. With regard to the cleaning of machinery, whether wholly or partly in motion, I did not quite catch the meaning of my hon. friend the Member for Bolton. Clause 18 says—
"A child shall not be allowed to clean in any factory any place under any machinery other than overhead mill gearing while the machinery is in motion by aid of steam, water, or other mechanical power."
I welcome the introduction of that clause, which is a very great improvement in the present law, because undoubtedly a very large number of accidents, not only to children but also to adults, have resulted from the dangerous practice of cleaning machinery while it is in

671
motion. Clause 19 deals with steam boilers. It is really almost a reflection on Parliament that we should only now be making it necessary to have a steam gauge and a water gauge on every boiler. That shows how deficient the law is at present. But why should railway companies be exempted? Is it because the railway interest in this House is so powerful? Why should we not endeavour to prevent locomotive explosions? Only a few weeks ago a railway locomotive boiler exploded, and the stoker and the engine-driver were blown to atoms. That might have happened in a crowded railway station; and I should say myself that boiler explosions are more apt to occur when steam is being kept down than when the locomotives are running. There seems to me to be no good reason whatever for excluding railway locomotive boilers, and of course agricultural boilers also. I quite agree that we must have a better definition of what a "competent engineer" means. Many of us employ competent engineers, and I myself might say that inspection by my own engineer of a boiler should be sufficient. But in the interests of the community at large boilers of private firms ought to be inspected not only by a competent engineer, but by some outside independent expert authority. As hon. Members representing manufacturing districts know well, the custom is for all sensible proprietors of factory boilers to have the boilers periodically inspected by the Inspector of the Boiler Insurance Company with whom they are insured. Not only do we insure our boilers, but we also insure our economisers, and I would recommend to the Home Secretary that insurance of economisers is just as necessary as insurance of boilers. Clause 25 introduces a new principle—namely, that the factory surgeon in issuing a certificate to a young person or child may qualify the certificate in such a way as to prevent that child or young person being employed in labour for which he or she is unfitted. I think an option of this kind is a very desirable proviso. I myself know that factory surgeons have very often felt themselves under the obligation, as it were, of certifying children and young persons for work for which they were not fitted, and I am sure that this option will be
672
frequently exercised by the factory surgeons. In Clause 38 we have a very interesting exemption which still continues to be made in favour of factories doing Government work. It is a fact that factories in the north of England have been availing themselves of the power to manufacture goods on their own account by working overtime, when that overtime ought to have been confined to Government work only. I would suggest, in order that this provision should be properly carried out, that whenever it is desired to exercise it there should be sent not only to the local factory inspector a special notice, but that a special notice should be exhibited in the factory itself at the time, so that the workpeople may know to what the proviso applies. I am glad also to see in this Bill that electrical stations and railway sidings are to be brought within its scope. I am only a new Member, and I intend to make short speeches. This is a subject of which I know a great deal, and I have only said a quarter of what I wished to say, but I do not believe in long speeches. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife referred to the speech of that eminent business man the chairman of Kynochs the other day, with reference to inspection. I am not in any fear of inspection, nor is any good employer, as long as we have not to pay too much for it. But in the same speech to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it is cheering to find that the prospects of the general trade seemed to the chairman of the company brighter than they had been for a long time past. He said—
"Individual businesses no doubt waxed and waned, but the manufacturers of this country were never, as a whole, it appeared to him, more confident, more energetic, more successful, and—perhaps he ought to say it in a whisper—more wealthy.
If this be the case, then we have no more to fear in the future from these supposed restrictions on our liberty than we, have had in the past.
MR. J. W. WILSON: I am glad that the Home Secretary and the Government have brought forward this Bill at a moderate time in the session, and have not left it to a later period to send it to the Committee which is to deal with it. I hope the Committee will spare no pains in making

673
the, Bill as distinct, as intelligible, and as clear as they possibly can, not only to employers of labour and factory inspectors, but also to employees, and that its consideration will not be in any way hurried. It is not my intention to go into a detailed criticism, especially after what the First Lord of the Treasury has said, but I hope that both Bills will pass their Second Reading before twelve o'clock to-night. I would, however, associate myself with the suggestion that this Bill throws too much power on the local authorities, not because I am afraid of decentralisation, but because of the inconvenience of having several inspectors representing different authorities and causing friction and difficulty. I believe in the local authority, particularly the medical officers of that authority, being able to call the attention of the Home Office to things required to be done, but I believe particularly in having at the Home Office inspectors of higher calibre and greater judgment than can be possibly employed by the local authorities, and in keeping with the supreme power and ultimate judgment in these matters. With reference to Clause 5, I hope great care will be used in declaring what process or material shall be employed or not. I am a great believer in prevention, and in the power of science to overcome difficulties, whether chemical, mechanical, or of any other kind. Prohibition will never advance the commercial prosperity of this country. I should regard that as the last resort, believing that, if only the right pressure is brought to bear, English science, ability, and dogged-ness will eventually overcome the difficulties and bring to a successful issue what might appear to be a most difficult, dangerous, or intricate mechanical process. That is another reason why I think that full publicity should be given to all such inquiries, and that due time should be given for discussion cither here or in Select Committees upstairs before any ultimately too severe or restrictive legislation is passed affecting the industries of the country.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not find this discussion too sweet for his palate. For myself, I do not consider Government inspection to be a good thing in itself, and I Would very much prefer that manufacturers
674
and owners of workshops should keep their establishments in good order than that more and more inspection should be demanded. I think it is a pity that such unqualified words should appear in any Government proposal as those contained in Clause 5—that regulations may be made, among other things, prohibiting the use of any material or process. I have been engaged in taking up new processes for more than a quarter of a century, and I remember very well that process after process that I and my partner have adopted has been at the time dangerous to life and health, but we have fought out our difficulties until those processes have become a benefit not only to those who have carried them on but to the country at large. I would ask hon. Members to consider whether such an extraordinary and unheard of power should be put into the hands of a public official, ignorant, as he is bound to be, of the matter, if it is a new process or material. I welcome the provision that the medical officer of health should report on the administration of the Factory Acts in workshops and work places, but I am reminded of a futile endeavour which I made in 1888 to induce the Government to provide that all medical officers of health should be made independent of private practice. I am afraid that this new power, put into the hands of men of high character and qualifications, but who unfortunately receive at the hands of the public authorities salaries of only £40, £50, or £60 a year, will not altogether tend to the public advantage. That consideration may induce the right hon. Gentleman at a future date to provide that medical officers of health should be put into the thoroughly independent position which they would occupy if they had large districts, large salaries, and no private practice. There are other points upon which I should like to touch, but, in view of the appeal of the First Lord of the Treasury, I will say nothing more than that, viewed broadly, I think the Bill is an improvement upon the present practice.
MR. POWER: The other night my hon. friend the Member for Waterford asked the Government to exempt from inspection a certain class of laundries conducted by the nuns of the Good Shepherd Order. The hon.

675
Member for Battersea, in saying tonight that he disagreed with my hon. friend, said that these convent schools very often did not object to inspection, and he instanced the case of the industrial schools. But the cases are by no means parallel. In the case of industrial schools the Government gives a certain capitation grant for the children, and naturally has a right of inspection in order to see that everything is conducted in a proper manner. These laundries are carried on by ladies who have devoted their lives to the most honourable and charitable of all avocations, and certainly the ladies themselves and those whom they have given their lives to reclaim would resent any intrusion or inspection. I would go further than my hon. friend, and say that there should be no inspection of any of these schools or laundries in regard to which at present it does not exist. This question was threshed out some years ago, and the then Home Secretary, Mr. Matthews, took the stand we are now taking, and asked that these schools should be exempt on the ground that inspection was unnecessary and uncalled for. Moreover, a motion that they should be inspected was defeated in Committee by thirty-eight to ten. Nothing has happened since then to justify the re opening of the question, and we shall resist the proposal in Committee and elsewhere, believing that it is a proposal which will be subversive of discipline, and one for which there is not the slightest demand.
MR. H. J. WILSON: With regard to the question just referred to, the hon. Member has spoken of only one class of laundries, namely, those carried on by nuns. But there are in London and elsewhere in this country a large number of institutions of a similar character, and I know that there is a considerable apprehension amongst them as to the effect the full application of this Bill as it stands may have upon them. I believe an intimation has been given that some concession may be made, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to receive any representations which may be made by the ladies who are carrying on these benevolent institutions.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  A Clause (Power of Hospital Committee to contract for hospital accommodation), brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.—(Mr. Long.)

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  On the Order for Second Reading—
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid this was clearly to some extent a controversial measure, and, as it had come on quite unexpectedly, he thought it ought not then to be pressed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would not press the Second Reading if that was the view of the hon. Gentleman.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not object to the purpose of this Bill, but I think an opportunity should be given for the discussion of one or two points contained in the measure. We all desire to make the National Gallery as safe as such a valuable institution ought to be, but I am afraid the plan suggested by His Majesty's Office of Works does not go quite so far as some of us would wish. The proposal is to make a forty-foot roadway by taking a jeweller's shop on the western side of the Gallery. That is all very well as far as it goes, but unless some stables belonging to a noble Lord also on the north-western side of the Gallery are taken, the building will not be as safe as it ought to be. I rise not for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, but to suggest to the First Commissioner of Works that he should give us as good a scheme as possible, and that for that purpose he should acquire this additional property from Lord Lonsdale, who, I believe, is willing to sell, so that

677
there is no need for compulsory powers. I take a special interest in this question because I happen to be on the Fire Brigade Committee of the London County Council. Wherever possible that Committee co-operates with His Majesty's Government in protecting public buildings. As a member of that committee I visited this particular neighbourhood only last week, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he allows these stables to remain, the National Gallery will be left as susceptible to fire as it is at present.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): This Bill, which is an entirely uncontentious measure, was brought in in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave last year. By it property will be acquired which will enable us to make between the National Gallery and the adjoining buildings practically a 40-feet space, except at the one small point alluded to by the hon. Member for Battersea, where it will be 35 feet. The southern portion of the barracks will be pulled down at the end of the year, and that will still further isolate this very valuable building. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea, I am quite prepared to consider the proposal that we should take this further property, especially if it can be obtained voluntarily. An Instruction to the Committee has been put down by the hon. and gallant Member for South St. Pancras. If that were persisted in I am afraid the Bill would have to fall for this year, because if the purchase is compulsory the usual notices must be given in November. I hope, therefore, that that Instruction will not be pressed. I will consult with my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and see whether it is possible to acquire this additional property, which, I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Battersea, it would be an advantage to do.
CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.): I shall be very glad to withdraw the Instruction which I have placed upon the Paper on the understanding that an attempt will be made this year to come to terms with the owner of these stables. I would press upon the Government and all who are interested in the National Gallery the desirability of the Chancellor
678
of the Exchequer, even in this year when so much money is required, providing the necessary sum to make this building perfectly safe in the future.
Ordered, That all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said this was a simple Bill, introduced for the purpose of removing an anomaly which had existed from 1836. For purely technical reasons ten or twelve boards of guardians were not allowed to appoint their own superintendent registrars of births and deaths. That tentative arrangement had existed for sixty-five years, and it appeared to the Government that the time was ripe for giving equal rights to all boards of guardians.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. O'MARAthought that if the state of things which this Bill was intended to alter had existed for sixty-five years, it might very well be left for another two or three weeks, in order that the House might have time properly to consider the proposed alteration of the law.
It being Twelve o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.
  OUT-DOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) from each Savings Bank in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, containing, in columns, the names of the Officers, their respective salaries, and other allowances, if any; the amount of security each gives; the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments and salaries, for the year ended the 20th day of November, 1900; the rate per centum per annum on the capital of the Bank for the expenses of management; the rate of interest paid to Depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the number of accounts remaining open the total amount owing to Depositors; the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; the balance in the hands of the Treasury at the 20th day of November, 1900; the total amount of the separate Surplus Fund on the 20th day of November, 1900; other assets, including estimated value of Bank premises, furniture, etc.; the total assets; the total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of Depositors; the number and amount of annuities granted; and the average cost of each transaction; also the year in which business commenced in each Bank, and the name of the day or days, and the number of hours in the week, on which the Banks are open for the deposit and withdrawal of moneys; including in such Return a list of all such Savings Banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic, c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Banks; showing, in each case, the number of such Banks, as well as the number and amount of Depositors' accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, mad to all or any of the Officers of such Banks respectively; and showing also the years in which such Banks were respectively opened and closed, and the number and amount of their Depositors' balances, and the number of days and hours in each week on which the same
  680
  Banks were open for public business at the close of the year next preceding the date of such closing; distinguishing the same, as in the form of the Return, for each separate county, as well as collectively; for England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, and for the United Kingdom; and (2) for the year ending the 20th day of November, 1900, showing the total number of Depositors in Trustee Savings Banks; the total number of deposits; the average amount of each deposit account; the average sums paid in and drawn out; the total number of persons who have deposited in single sums the entire amount allowed to be deposited during the year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 230, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Mount.)

NEW BILLS.
  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS.
  Bill to declare the law that no prosecution under the Vaccination Acts shall be commenced without the authority of the guardians, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Brigg, Mr. Carlile, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Broadhurst.
  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS BILL.
  "To declare the law that no prosecution under the Vaccination Acts shall be commenced without the authority of the guardians," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]
  MEAT MARKING (IRELAND).
  Bill to provide for the marking of foreign meat in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Field, Mr. Condon, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Captain Donelan.

  MEAT MARKING (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the marking of Foreign Meat in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 25th June, and to be printed. [Bill 216.]
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a Speech indicates revision by the Member.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Walter Bulkeley, Viscount Barrington, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords 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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) [H.L.];

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2);

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3);

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4);

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5);

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—

Commons Regulation and Inclosure (Skipworth) Provisional Order;

Local Government Provisional Order (Gas);

Metropolitan Common Scheme (Orpington) Provisional Order.

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Cambrian Railways;

Blackpool Improvement;

Bradford Corporation;

Bury Corporation;

510

London County Council (Tramways and Street Widenings);

Metropolitan Railway;

Shireoaks, Laughton, and Maltby Railway;

West Cumberland Electric Tramways;

Dublin Corporation (Markets, etc.);

Mond Gas.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed:—

  London County Council (General Powers);

  London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway;

  North British Railway.

  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with:—

  Belfast and Northern Counties Railway;

  Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (New Ross and Waterford Extension);

  Winsford Urban District (Gas Transfer, etc.);

  Biggleswade Water.

  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the

  City and North-Eastern Suburban Electric Railway Bill [H.L.]

  ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision.
  Read, and agreed to.

  HARROGATE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.

  HORLEY DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  Reported without amendment.

  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  DUBLIN ST. JAMES' GATE BREWERY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported with an Amendment.
  RIPON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 115.)
  OAKHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LONDON BRIDGE WIDENING BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3.) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2628, Germany (Hamburg); No. 2629, China (Ningpo); No. 2630, Portugal (Inhambane).

  CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) ACT, 1900.
  Preliminary Report of the Census of Scotland, 1901.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HARWICH HARBOUR.
  Abstract of accounts of receipts and expenditure of Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board, to 31st day of March, 1901, with report on proceedings, etc.; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the London County Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against; of Burnley Off-Licences Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CHINA WAR (1856–1861).
  Petition for prize money to be distributed to those entitled to share in the same, of a meeting at Southsea; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
A Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Thursday next at half-past two o'clock.
JUSTICES' JURISDICTION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law with respect to the jurisdiction of justices within the Metropolitan Police District was presented by the Lord Belper; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, the 25th instant. (No. 116.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, the Bill now before your Lordships is similar to the one that was brought forward in 1899, with this exception, that while the former Bill provided that after a certain time no foreigner should be master of a British ship, this Bill only provides that, after 1st January next, no further certificates of competency as master shall be granted to any except British subjects. The Bill does not disturb any of the present foreign masters. None of them will be dismissed from commanding a British ship; but the Bill will prevent any further increase in their numbers, which, I think, is a step in the right direction. When the former Bill was before the House I spoke at some length on the subject, and I reminded your Lordships that a British ship was British territory, on which British laws have to be administered, and that, therefore, it was only just and proper that those laws should be administered by British subjects. I also instanced the danger that might arise of a British ship, commanded by a foreigner, being, in time of war, taken by him into a hostile port. My noble friend the Earl of Dudley said, in answer to this, that he thought it assumed considerable powers of persuasion on the part of the captain and considerable simplicity on the part of the crew. I do not think my noble friend was aware that it is a very common thing for a master to receive his orders by telegram, without his officers or the crew being made aware of their purport, and that he is in a position to obtain news long before anyone else on board. Under those circumstances, nothing could be easier than for him to inform his officers that he had received orders to deliver the cargo at whatever port he intended to run for, and the first intimation the officers and crew would have of the true state of affairs would be their being made prisoners of war, and the ship confiscated, possibly with a large cargo of grain, which at that time would be a severe loss to England.
Now, my Lords, it is universally admitted that the present large number of foreigners in our mercantile marine is a serious evil, and a great menace to our shipping in time of war. There are vessels sailing under the British flag manned entirely from captain down to
514
cabin boy by foreigners, and the prevailing language is German. Should we unfortunately have a war with Germany, those men would at once return to rejoin their flag, and, if they were in a position to do so, would certainly take the vessel with them. Every other maritime Power, with the exception of Japan and Holland, require their ships to be commanded by their own subjects; and even these two Powers would do so if they had as efficient a supply to draw from as we have in this country. In case of war with a strong naval Power, the present lamentable state of affairs, if permitted to continue, would be a serious menace to the nation, as the safety of every British merchant ship would be of the utmost importance. Even the diversion of only half a dozen ships, laden, say, with grain, would be a loss which we could very ill afford. This Bill seeks to remove that danger, if only to a small extent, and its passing would go a great way towards assuring the country that the Government are adopting practical steps towards making the merchant service a really efficient first reserve for the Empire—a reserve upon which there would most certainly be an immediate call in the case of our going to war with one of the Great Powers. As illustrative of the supreme importance of the merchant service to the nation, I may mention that up to the end of last year 132 British Vessels, embracing a tonnage of 706,084 tons, had been chartered by the home and Indian Governments as transports for the conveyance of troops, over 200,000 in number, and numerous other vessels were engaged for the conveyance of munitions of war in the shape of guns, stores, horses, mules, etc. The magnitude of the tonnage of these 132 vessels may be estimated from the fact that only four other Powers have mercantile marines which exceed it. In contradistinction to the mismanagement of other services, the transport service has been conducted with marvellous efficiency, not a single life being lost, and the highest public tributes have been paid to the late First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Goschen, and the principal transport officer at the Cape. I might here say that when the war is happily over, I hope His Majesty's Government, in giving awards for meritorious service,

515
will not forget these mercantile masters and officers who have done such good service to the State. In the case of one merchant ship which was chartered as a transport, her captain, who was a foreigner, was required to give way to a British subject, and in another case the same thing happened in regard to a chief officer. Lord Goschen, speaking in the House of Commons when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, in March of last year, upon two transport ships which were almost entirely manned by foreigners, said—
"I may frankly admit that I was startled when I saw the composition of the crew of these two ships. I deeply regret such a state of things, and hope that in the future owners with whom the Admiralty have to deal will avoid the necessity of such cases being brought before the House."
That, my Lords, is the opinion of the late First Lord of the Admiralty. The views of the Government are plainly shown in their requiring British subjects to be substituted for the foreign officers in the transports referred to, and surely it is not consistent for them now to oppose this Bill. I am very sorry to find that the shipowners are opposing this Bill. I think it is a short sighted policy on their part, and I know it is most unpatriotic. They have sent a circular letter to every Member of your Lordships' House except myself—I have a copy of it, however, through the courtesy of a noble Lord—giving their reasons for opposing the Bill, and I propose to deal very shortly with their objections. I cannot do better than read the replies of the merchant service Guild to the first two objections. They are as follows—
"(1) That it is no argument against the principle of the Bill that it involves a reversal of policy. The experience of over forty years shows that in some particulars the repeal of the Navigation Act in 1849 was ill-advised. At the time of the repeal the merchant service of this country was a very different service from what it is at the present time, and the very fact that recently leading ship-owners have bitterly complained that the present Merchant Shipping Act is obsolete, illustrates that it was not drafted on the most approved lines or on ripened experience.
"(2) The promoters of the Bill have borne in mind the fact that its passage would not be inimical to the interests of the shipowners, owing to there being a great over-supply of British captains and officers. They would not extend their demands to seamen and firemen until
516
there was an adequate supply of British subjects of this class, which they recognise is not the case at present."
The third objection is that the proportion of foreigners holding masters' certificates in the British mercantile marine is exceedingly small. The Government have recently gone so far as to offer to owners a rebate on the light dues if they have carried boys in their ships. You are endeavouring to get boys to enter the mercantile marine whose legitimate ambition is one day to command a vessel, and when they have served all their time and passed all their examinations they may find no berths open to them, owing to their being occupied by foreigners. What I wish to impress upon your Lordships is, that every one of the 794 alien masters and officers is taking the place of one of our own fellow-subjects. I do not think that is either right or just. Their fourth objection is that a large number of British subjects are at present employed (especially as engineers) in vessels which belong to foreign nations. If, therefore (they say), this Bill were passed it might easily lead to these nations adopting a retaliatory policy in this matter, to the loss and injury of many of His Majesty's subjects. Our English engineers are employed because they are the best that can be got; the moment they have educated their own men sufficiently they will dispense with our countrymen. I will read to your Lordships a letter which will show how foreigners behave towards Britishers—
"Hong Kong, 31st March, 1901. "In the early part of 1900, the Scottish Oriental Steamship Company, Limited, of Edinburgh, having a fleet of fifteen steamers, trading between Hong Kong, Siam, and the Straits Settlements, sold their fleet to the Norddeutscher Lloyds. Now, as a matter of fact, they had not a single man available to put in the ships when they bought them, so you can imagine the trouble, inconvenience, and expense they would have been put to had all the Britishers resigned when the flag was changed, and that was what most of them wanted to do. But, to gain time, they (the Norddeutscher Lloyds) told the captains and officers that they had the permission of the German Government to retain the services of all Britishers who wished to remain in the company for a term of four years at least. That was all right, and plain sailing; no one complained, and it gave the men a chance to try and save a little money and look around for themselves. In the meantime, however, the Lloyds were gathering together their own

517
German officers, and sending them out and discharging the Britishers, so that in less than fourteen months all the Britishers sailing under the German flag had notice to leave the service, with no word of explanation, only, 'You must leave next trip, as we will have our own men here to take command,' etc. The manager of the Scottish Oriental was also very anxious we should remain. The managing agents out here, Messrs. Windsor and Co., went so far as to give the captains a letter stating that they would retain their services for the time mentioned, and now this is the result—dismissed, in less than fifteen months, without any explanation whatever.
"No remuneration, not a word of sympathy, nor a letter of thanks for past services, after being with them for fourteen years in command and without costing them a cent.
"To give you some idea of German sense of fair play, we, whilst under the British flag, divided our orders between an English and a German firm. Now all that is changed, and not an order of any kind is given to any English firm. Although these people, trading to an English port, having all the advantages and privileges of English ships, in a sense, boycott all and anything British. Isn't this nice for Britishers to reflect upon! What do our friends at home think of this?"
The fifth objection is that no valid reason has been shown why British shipowners should—alone, of all employers of labour in this country—be forbidden by Parliament to employ foreigners in their service. Well, my Lords, you cannot regard the mercantile marine service in the same light as any other business; it is a national service as well as a private service. There is no law to prevent any foreigner setting up in any trade or business in any of His Majesty's dominions, and he may employ whom he likes; but the law says it is requisite that a British ship should be owned by a British subject, and if that is the case it is equally, in fact far more, necessary that she should be commanded by a British subject. The shipowners have the full advantage of this law, but they do not wish the benefit to be extended to their fellow-subjects. They wish to keep all the plums. The shipowners, when it touches their pockets, are quite ready to regard the mercantile marine as a national service, as witness the agitation about light dues when they wished the nation to pay them. I for one would not oppose that; I would be willing to help the shipowner in every way; without them we would not have the ships, and without ships we would have no sailors, but they should not be selfish and deny relief
518
to those in their employment. The sixth objection is, that if such a measure be required it should be introduced by the President of the Board of Trade into Parliament, with the authority, and upon the responsibility, of His Majesty's Government, and not be left to the initiative of a private member of the House of Lords. I fully agree with that, but if the Board of Trade will not do their duty, then private members of your Lordships' House, or private members of the House of Commons, must bring these matters forward. It is neither just nor right that only the shipowners' wishes should be regarded, and that the interests of the 10,000 odd shipmasters, besides a much greater number of officers, should be disregarded. It is a monstrous shame that this large number of English subjects dare not give their free opinions on matters connected with their profession for fear of dismissal, should they in any way clash with the owners' wishes. In fact, this large body of men are debarred the freedom of speech which every other subject of His Majesty enjoys.
The Board of Trade are also opposing this Bill, but that does not surprise me. Nothing that the Board of Trade did in connection with marine matters would surprise me, except they showed some common-sense and initiated the many needful reforms themselves. They remind me of a stubborn donkey who requires a great deal of whacking before he will move. The Board of Trade is a really wonderful body. I believe the most reverend prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury is a member, although I do not think he is aware of it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is a member, and there are various other members; but I think I am perfectly right in saying that this Board, controlling the largest mercantile marine in the world, which, in its way, is as important to us as the Royal Navy, does not contain among its members one who has any knowledge of the sea or things pertaining to the sea. They have nautical advisers, but my noble friend will, I hope, tell us about them to-morrow. I would ask your Lordships to contrast the Board of Admiralty, on which you have naval officers of tried skill and experience, with the Board of Trade.

519
The late President of the Board of Trade stated in the House of Commons in February of last year—
"Take for instance the question of a war—the question of a war where the Naval Reserves were called out—that would be to deplete British ships of British seamen, and instead of being partially manned by foreigners they would, under existing circumstances, be altogether manned by foreigners. That, I think, is matter for very great regret, and if any suggestion can be made to remedy that state of things, or to endeavour to remedy that state of things, which the whole House regrets, then the House would do wrong not to consider any suggestion that might be made."
The Bill before your Lordships is not only a suggestion; it is the first step to remedy this state of things. Alluding to the prosperity of the shipping interests, Mr. Gerald Balfour, the present President of the Board of Trade, in a speech to the Chamber of Shipping on the 28th of March last, said:—
"I candidly admit there is one dark spot which, to some extent, mars the face of this prosperity. I refer to the circumstance that undoubtedly the proportion of foreigners employed in British ships is very much higher than we should like to see it. A grave consideration in connection with this matter arises from the fact that the proportion of foreigners is not decreasing, but increasing. It was only about 14 per cent. in 1890; it has now risen to something like 20 per cent. This is not a condition of affairs which I think any of us, looking at the matter from a national point of view, can regard with complete equanimity. This is not merely a question in which the shipping interest is concerned; it is a problem in which the nation itself is concerned."
That is exactly what I have had the honour of stating to your Lordships several times in the last three years. I suppose that in reality the President of the Board of Trade is the Board of Trade, for one individual, I understand, forms a quorum. I presume these right hon. Gentlemen meant what they said, and spoke for the Board of Trade. Then I would ask your Lordships, is it consistent that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade should oppose this Bill? The present shipowners owe their prosperity greatly to their predecessors, who built up the commerce, whose ships were manned entirely by British seamen, and who established England's commercial greatness in those days. The British merchant ship often engaged and beat off an enemy's ship of war; in fact, on one occasion a fleet of merchant ships showed such a bold front
520
against a powerful squadron of the enemy that the latter were afraid to engage. The old shipowners handed down a glorious heritage, but if the present shipowners continue on the lines they are going now, what will they hand down to their predecessors? A British merchant fleet, manned by foreigners, with nothing British about them except, perhaps, the fabrics of the ships and the name; and then, if a war occurs, good-bye to your fleet and to England's supremacy on the sea, and your Lordships know very well what that would mean. How long would we hold out in England if our food supply were stopped? Our statesmen are only talking, while those of other nations are acting. This is only the first step in a much-needed reform, and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muskerry.)
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, I think it would be easier to answer my noble friend if he had confined himself a little more closely to the subject-matter of his Bill, without embarking into criticisms of the mercantile department of the Board of Trade, which I shall be very pleased to deal with if he will put the subject down on the Paper, but which are not conveniently raised on a question of this kind. As regards the Bill, I have really nothing to add to what was said in your Lordships' House two sessions ago, when my noble friend made a somewhat similar proposal. It is true that this Bill, as my noble friend has explained, deals only with masters of merchant ships, whereas his previous Bill involved all certificated officers. But I fail to see what guarantee there is in this measure by which, if it is now passed, we shall be safeguarded from, next year or the year after, another and a larger Bill being introduced in this House, and defended on the ground that Parliament has already accepted the principle upon which it is based. Although my noble friend may wrap his proposal up in all kinds of irrelevant phrases, this Bill means protection and nothing else. The worst of protection

521
is that when one class of people gets it, everybody immediately clamours for similar advantages, and I have no doubt that if this Bill were passed we should be invited before very long to advance, step by step, to the state of things which existed under the old navigation laws which Parliament deliberately swept away in 1849. My noble friend has quoted the opinion of the Merchant Service Guild to prove that Parliament was wrong in sweeping away the navigation laws fifty years ago. If my noble friend thinks that the country is prepared to go back to that state of things, would it not be much better for us to have a fair and square discussion upon the whole question than to attempt to deal with it in a partial kind of way, by which the principle is first of all attempted to be introduced, and then larger measures subsequently built upon it? I do not wish to discuss to-night whether the navigation laws were wise laws or not; but I do protest against any attempt to re-establish them by successive steps of this kind. If my noble friend wishes to return to that state of things, he had much better bring a Bill involving the whole question before the House, and let us have it out once and for all.
I object, therefore, to this Bill, in the first place because, under a seemingly modest exterior, we should be assenting to a motive force which lies below it, and which may carry us hereafter rather further than we wish to go. I object to the Bill also on its own merits. Unless it can be shown that it is for some definite national advantage, I cannot understand the justice of picking out any one particular trade and imposing upon that trade restrictive inconveniences, while you allow to other trades all the advantages of a wider selection of employment. My noble friend has again mentioned the danger which he thinks would be incurred in time of war to English ships commanded by foreign masters. He told us, as I understood, that the master would receive notice at sea by telegram—how he was to do that, except, perhaps, by the Marconi system, I do not know—that war had broken out, and that he would immediately, without taking the crew into his confidence, navigate his
522
ship to some hostile port. I do not think, in reality, that that danger would be found to exist. If the master was of the nationality with whom we were likely to go to war, I think the crew, if they were British subjects, or, at any rate, if they were not of the same nationality as the master, would be all the more likely to have their own interests at heart, and to keep an eye open as to what the master was likely to do with the vessel. I do not think that any such practice as the noble Lord suggests would be likely to occur. If there is no danger of that kind we then come merely to the inconvenience that would accrue to shipowners of having a restriction of this kind imposed upon them; and, my Lords, the inconvenience would be really considerable. A great many British ships do not come to England at all; they trade between foreign ports, and carry on no trade at all in the country in which they are registered. Take, for instance, an English vessel trading between, say, Genoa and Brindisi, and calling in at the intermediate Italian ports. Is it not possible that an Englishman owning a vessel of that kind would find it much more convenient to employ an Italian, who knows the language and the customs of the country, than an English master, who would have to learn them from the beginning? Personally, I think it is quite possible, and that the English owner employing a foreign master under those conditions would be doing a perfectly justifiable act, and really meeting the requirements of his own trade. As a matter of fact, there are very few foreigners at present commanding British ships. The whole question is, after all, a very small one. In 1896 there were, I think, 180 foreign masters in command of British ships. I cannot give your Lordships later figures than that, because the quin-quennial census was taken in that year, and therefore another one will not be taken till this year. But I can tell your Lordships that since 1896 only 69 foreigners have taken out certificates as masters of British ships. In 1897, 31 foreigners passed; in 1898, nine; in 1899, 12; and in 1900, 17. Therefore, the number cannot be very great, and I think it will be found that not

523
200 foreigners command English ships, out of a total number of 11,000 or 12,000. I do not think there is any need for legislation of this character. My noble friend has referred to the question of a national reserve of seamen for the Navy in time of war, but I do not think the question of masters is on all fours with that of ordinary seamen. Whatever may be thought about the necessities of providing a Reserve out of the mercantile marine in time of war, I do not think it would ever be suggested that masters of merchant ships would ever be likely to be used in that way. The training of an officer in the Navy is absolutely different from the training of an officer in the mercantile marine, and it is difficult to understand how the master of a merchant ship could ever be utilised to perform the duties of even a subordinate officer on board a man-of-war in time of war. I do not think, therefore, that this question of enforcing the employment of British subjects as masters of merchant ships in order to act as a Reserve can be argued in the same way.
There is only one other point, and I do not wish to lay much stress upon it, because it is more or less problematical. My noble friend has referred to the question of retaliation. At present, as he says, there are a good many British subjects serving, principally as engineers, in foreign ships, and I think that, in discussing any legislation of this kind, we must remember the possibility of retaliation. Of course, it may be true, as my noble friend says, that these men are merely being used as instructors to engineers of other nationalities, and that in course of time they will be discharged in any case; but I see no reason why we should hasten the performance. This is a point, I think, which we ought to remember, because, undoubtedly, if there is anything like general retaliation we should derive much more harm than we are likely to receive good from a Bill of this kind. I think what we all desire to see is the employment of as many British subjects as possible in British ships. We wish to feel that any increase in our great shipping industry carries with it an increase in the opportunities of employment for British subjects;
524
but, personally, I think that that is much more likely to be effected by improving the conditions of employment, by raising the status and the character of British seamen—in fact, by putting an end, if possible, to the reasons which bring about the employment of foreigners in our mercantile marine, than by any restrictive legislation of this kind, which would have the effect, in my opinion, at any rate, of aggravating the weaknesses of British seamen, which have already led in so many cases to the employment of foreigners, and of hampering our greatest national industry, upon the prosperity of which depend, after all, the good wages of the seamen and the comfortable conditions of their employment.
LORD MUSKERRY: My noble friend seems to think that the master of a British vessel is not a seaman. He is a seaman first, and his becoming a master does not make him any the less a seaman.
On Question, resolved in the negative.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order); an amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

DECK CARGOES—BOARD OF TRADE REGULATIONS.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that although British vessels are subjected to heavy penalties for carrying deck cargoes to ports in the United Kingdom during the winter months, it is a common practice for the regulations to be evaded by the carriage of deck cargoes during the prohibited season to ports on the Continent; whether the s.s. "Mobile" proceeding in December last with a deck cargo from a United States port to Bremerhaven has been lost with all hands; whether certain written statements made before leaving by the second officer have been

525
placed in the hands of the Board of Trade; and whether it is their intention to hold that inquiry which in the interests of safety of life at sea is imperative? The written statements of the second officer are contained in a letter to his father on 25th December, 1900—
"We are loading a very big deck cargo of timber. We should not be allowed to have more than 3 ft. if we were coming to England."
And in a letter to his sister, in which he says—
"We are loading a very big deck cargo of timber, as we are going to Bremerhaven. We should not be allowed to carry such a cargo if we were coming to England."
I understand that this cargo was taken on board before the bunker coal was put into the vessel, which would immerse her a great deal more in the water.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not quite understand what my noble friend means by the beginning of his question. He asks whether His Majesty's Government are aware that although British vessels are subjected to heavy penalties for carrying deck cargoes to ports in the United Kingdom during the winter months, it is a common practice for the regulations to be evaded by the carriage of deck cargoes during the prohibited season to parts on the Continent. It is undoubtedly true that British vessels carrying deck cargo over a certain height during the winter months are liable to a fine, but the regulations are not evaded by the carrying of deck cargo from one foreign port to another. Obviously we have no jurisdiction over a vessel, such as the "Mobile," which trades between a port in the United States and a port in Germany; and, what is more, if she had been driven in here through stress of weather there would be no power to touch her either. As to the latter part of the question it is, unfortunately, quite true that the "Mobile" was lost at sea with all hands. Two statements made by the second officer just before the vessel left the United States have been sent for and forwarded to the solicitor who is at present getting together the evidence for the inquiry which will take place at the end of the month. The inquiry was decided on as far back as March, but my noble friend will realise
526
that in a case of this kind, when a vessel has gone down with all hands, it is extremely hard to get the evidence necessary for the inquiry.

DECK CARGOES—BOARD OF TRADE REGULATIONS.
  GIBRALTAR WORKS—COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, who had given notice to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Report of the Committee which recently inspected the new works at Gibraltar will be laid on the Table of the House; and whether the construction of those works is being delayed in consequence of the Report or any other proceedings of that Committee, said: At the request of my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and in view of the debate in another place two nights ago, I will postpone my question; but I must say, before sitting down, that I think we ought to have a clear statement at the earliest possible date, the matter being of the greatest importance to the maritime interests of this country.

DEMISE OF THE CROWN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, this is a Bill to remedy a misunderstanding in the law, or, at all events, a casus omissus. By the old common law of the country it happened that all appointments under the Crown were vacated on the demise of the Sovereign. This naturally led to great inconvenience, and an alteration was made, applying to various professions in various degrees, which may be said to have extended the tenure of office for six months after the demise of the Crown, leaving the vacancies to take place when that period had elapsed. Under the old law—that is the law as it was before the reign of Queen Victoria—there was always a dissolution of Parliament on the demise of the Crown. This was altered in 1867, when an end was put to the necessity of a dissolution. The sad event of the present year has made the bearing of the old doctrine on the tenure of office under the Crown a real inconvenience, and there has been some disagreement as to what the law is. I will not attempt

527
to decide where learned doctors differ, but obviously it is convenient that the demise of the Crown should not involve the vacation of all offices under the Crown. This is not merely a matter affecting the politician. It would be inconvenient and hard enough for him, but it extends to the Army, to the diplomatic service, and, I believe, also to the colonial service. This is obviously a state of things which should not be allowed to continue. This Bill will simply bring the law to the point at which it is necessary to fix it, in consequence of the abandonment of the practice of dissolving on the demise of the Crown, and will make no other alteration in the constitutional law of the country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL SPENCER: On the part of those with whom I have the honour of acting I may say that we entirely concur in the proposal of the noble Marquess, which is clearly a sequitur to the change which was made in 1867. Not being a lawyer, I will not go into the question whether the supposed difficulties really arise, but it seems to me most desirable to put an end to any doubt on the subject.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

RELEASE OF ARABI PASHA AND OTHER EGYPTIAN EXILES.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Papers will be presented to Parliament respecting the return to Egypt of Arabi Pasha and other exiles now in Ceylon. My object in placing the question on the Paper is a double one. I desire in the first place to obtain, if possible, some explanation from the Government as to the reasons which have influenced them in liberating Arabi and his colleagues, and, in the second place, I am particularly anxious to ascertain—and this is much more important—whether the assent of the Egyptian Government, the Khedive, and Lord Cromer has been obtained to these proceedings. If their assent has been readily accorded, there is, of course, nothing
528
further to be said. If, on the other hand, it has been given grudgingly and unwillingly, I think the course which has been adopted is one which may fairly be criticised. Whether the Egyptian Government and the British representatives are in favour of that course or not, in view of the many charges of inhumanity which have been brought against this country there can be no harm in reminding the House of the extraordinary, I might almost say the unheard of, generosity with which Arabi and his colleagues have been treated by this country. Arabi Pasha for some inscrutable reason—inscrutable as far as I myself am concerned—has been looked upon by many people in this country as a species of oriental Garibaldi, and he has been credited with many virtues which he does not possess. It would be much more fair to compare him to the defunct General Boulanger, of whom it may be said that he is an inferior copy. Arabi Pasha is a man of about as unheroic a character as it is possible to conceive. He first came into notoriety as a mutinous Egyptian colonel clamouring for an increase of pay—not, in itself, a particularly patriotic proceeding. Owing to the peculiar conditions which prevailed in Egypt, he eventually obtained the position of a kind of military dictator, and as a result of the anti-European feeling which prevailed in Egypt at that time, he was able to exercise practically unlimited power. In his position as military dictator he may be held liable for the disasters in Egypt and the massacres which took place at Alexandria, and he has never thought it worth while, apparently, to free himself from the charges which have been frequently brought against him of having tortured, in the most cruel way, Circassian and Turkish officers and other political opponents who fell into his power, during what may be called the interregnum. So little impressed was Lord Wolseley with his merits that after the battle of Tel-el-Kebir he recommended that Arabi should be shot. That was a course which any other Government would have adopted. But Arabi was not shot. On the contrary, legal gentlemen were sent out from this country to defend him, and they defended him with such success

529
that his sentence was commuted. Arabi was sent to the Island of Ceylon, which, I may remind your Lordships, was not much hardship, because the Island of Ceylon is a Mussulman's paradise. Besides that, we saddled the Egyptian Government with the payment to him of a pension of £300 a year, a larger sum than he would in all probability have obtained, judging by the military capacity he displayed, if he had remained a faithful servant of the Khedive. He was relegated to the Island of Ceylon, and there he lived in comfort, surrounded by his wives and other female relatives, and received the visits of British statesmen, mostly of the Radical party, who sought his opinion on Home Rule, Parish Councils, and similar questions, on which he was supposed to be an authority, And now we are told that he is to return, full of years and full of honours, to the country of his birth. It seems to me that Arabi Pasha has been an exceedingly fortunate individual. If the Egyptian Government, the Khedive, and Lord Cromer are ready to welcome him back, there is nothing further to be said. I hope his return will not lead to misunderstandings; but I fear that the course which has been adopted will do a great deal to encourage the extraordinary delusion which has prevailed on the Continent that Arabi Pasha was in the pay of the British Government from the start; and I hope it will not act as an encouragement to mutineers all over the globe to think that it is rather advantageous than otherwise to take up arms against, and come into collision with, the British Government.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I do not think there is any correspondence on this subject which could be usefully laid on the Table of the House. There is, of course, the Khedivial decree authorising Arabi's liberation. But that is a formal document, which I do not suppose the noble Lord would much care to see. There is besides some correspondence, but that is entirely of a confidential character, and I do not think it ought to be made public. But, in regard to the main facts, there is no mystery. These persons have now
530
completed a period of nineteen years exile in Ceylon. We hear that Arabi Pasha has considerably suffered in health, and we are advised that his return to his own country will not be attended by any danger to the public tranquillity. The noble Lord is anxious to know whether the consent of the Khedive, the Egyptian Government, and Lord Cromer has been obtained to Arabi's liberation. Those consents have been obtained. The noble Lord said he would like to know whether their consent had been given reluctantly. I am quite unable to fathom the mind of the Khedive or his advisers, but their consent was certainly given unreservedly. I will not attempt to follow the noble Lord into his examination of Arabi's character or antecedents, or the place which he deserves in history. I do not differ from the noble Lord when he says that Arabi's conduct does not seem to him to have been of a very admirable character. Nor will I endeavour to determine whether the noble Lord was right when he told the House that the Mussulman's paradise was to be found in the Island of Ceylon. Whether it be a paradise or not I do not know, but Arabi Pasha was very glad to be allowed to leave it.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six of the clock, till tomorrow, half-past Ten of the clock.