Sitting of 1 March 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Peti-
  176
  tions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Heading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

  Aldershot Gas and Water Bill.

  Caledonian Railway Bill.

  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.

  Gravosend Gas Bill.

  Great Eastern Railway Bill.

  Great Northern Railway Bill.

  London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill.

  South Metropolitan Gas Bill.

  Taff Vale Rail way Bill.

  Tendring Hundred Water Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be road a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 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, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—

  British Gas Light Company Bill.

  Crawley Gas Bill.

  District Messenger and Theatre Ticket Company Bill.

  Dublin St. James' Gate Brewery Tramways Bill.

  Gateshead and District Tramways Bill.

  Horley District Gas Bill.

  Leatherhead Gas Bill.

  Wells Water Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  BEXLEY TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hart Dyke and Mr. Forster.
  THAMES AND SEVERN PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Cambrian Railways Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the

177
parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the South Yorkshire Electric Power Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to exempt the Company proposed to be incorported by the Bill, and their undertaking from the provisions of Section 81 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

Resolutions agreed to.

CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS.
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Humphreys-Owen and Mr. Bryn Roberts.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
Report [this day] from the Select Committeee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby, Mr. Helder, and Mr. Platt-Higgins.

PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petition from Hollinwood, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from Wickham Market, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Keighley; Middlesbrough; Sedgley; and Southowram; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1896.
  Petition for alteration of Law, from West Ham; Guildford; South Shields; and Bedwellty; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from United Free Church of Scotland Temperance Union; and Southampton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th February; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 69.]
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of the number of Paupers relieved on the 1st day of January, 1901, and similar Statement for the 1st day of July, 1901 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 136, of Session 1900)."—Mr. Grant Lawson.)

QUESTIONS.
MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a public statement of General Lord Dundonald to the effect that hundreds of our soldiers are buried in South Africa today who would have been alive had proper water-carts been supplied; and can he state who was responsible for the type of water-carts selected; and what steps, if any, he intends to take in the matter.
MR. BRODRICK: I have seen the statement in question. The barrel water-carts alluded to in the statement have been superseded, after due inquiry and experiment, since 1895 by tank water-carts, and nearly all the water-carts sent to South Africa have been of the latter pattern, though a few of the former were also sent. Printed forms were sent to South Africa requesting the opinion of officers on all articles of equipment used there. This equipment, with others, will be considered in the light of the replies.
MR. DALZIEL: Do I understand that the water-carts condemned by Lord Dundonald have been changed?
MR. BRODRICK: I can give no further information.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—JAMESON RAID INDEMNITY—CHARTERED COMPANY'S COUNTERCLAIM.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House, on the 13th December, 1900,* in which he said for every pound fairly due in consequence of the Jameson raid from the Chartered Company to the late Transvaal Government at least £5 is probably due to the Company from the late Transvaal Government in consequence of the war entered into by that Government against this country; if so, whether he will communicate to the House particulars of this set-off of the Chartered Company.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): What happened was this: The hon. Member for East North-amptonshire asked whether the assets of the Transvaal, which we had been discussing, included the claim of the late Transvaal Government on the Chartered Company. I said that any question on that matter should be addressed to the Colonial Secretary, but, speaking merely my own opinion, I added the words which the hon. Member now quotes. Of course, what I meant, and what I believe I was
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxviii., page 753.

  179
  understood by the House to mean, was that anything duo from the Company seemed to me to have been wiped out by the injury done to the Company by the war. I did not go into details, nor have I any knowledge of them, much less did I admit, or suggest, that the Company could have any claim against Her late Majesty's Government, or the present administration of the Transvaal.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand his answer to mean that the taxpayers of this country are not entitled to have those details gone into before this question is determined?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It was only a general statement of my opinion, and I do not think there is any reason for going into details.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he means to press this claim against the Chartered Company?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This cannot be made an occasion for general discussion about the claims of or against the Chartered Company.

  GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THE WAR OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE TWO REPUBLICS.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury at what period in the year 1899 the Government were informed that if war ensued between the Transvaal and this country, as a result of the differences which were made apparent at the Bloemfontein Conference, the Free State would undoubtedly throw in her lot with the sister Republic; and whether the attention of the Government was called to a Report issued by the Intelligence Department of the War Office four months before the outbreak of the war, entitled Military Notes on the Dutch Republics of South Africa, of which copies have within the past few days been placed in the library of the House of Commons.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): All the information the Government received upon the subject dealt with in the question was either in
  180
  the nature of opinion, and therefore necessarily conjectural, or else depended upon the assurances of ex-President Steyn, which were, unfortunately, mendacious.

  TREATMENT OF BOER WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
  Mr. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there has been any revocation of the policy of placing the women and children confined in the concentration camps in South Africa, whose husbands and fathers are in the field, on reduced rations; or is that policy still being carried out.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question will he say whether it is not a fact that the great majority of the women and children now concentrated in camps have gone there by their own desire to obtain protection from natives and Boer marauders?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I think that the great majority of the women and children have gone into the camps by their own desire. Their motives I am not responsible for. I have not yet received full information, but Lord Kitchener has informed me that a sufficient allowance is being given to all families in camp, and that they are satisfied and comfortable.

  PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Has the Secretary for War any further news from South Africa?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; none beyond that already published.

SECRET ARMY CONTRACTS.
COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how much money has been spent up to 31st December last, or other convenient date, on secret contracts or secret purchases in connection with the South African war; and can he state when purchases or contracts are kept secret from this House who determines or advises the prices to be given, particularly under the following heads —namely, conveyance of troops, arms, ammunition, food, forage, tentage, tools and engines, railway material, clothing and bedding, hospital stores, animals, and saddlery and harness.
Mr. BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot give the information asked for by the hon. Member in the first part of his question. Terms of contract are settled, generally speaking, by the Director of Contracts in consultation with the military authorities concerned, and subject to the concurrence of the Financial Secretary and Secretary of State where the importance of the matter requires it. The chief exceptions to the above rule are the conveyance of troops by sea, which rests mainly with the Admiralty, and the purchase of horses, which rests with the Inspector General of Remounts.

MILITARY FUNERALS—ARTHUR DODD, SHROPSHIRE YEOMANRY.
MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
182
for War will he say if the War Office refused to send home for interment at Berrington, near Shrewsbury, the body of Arthur Dodd, one of the Shropshire Yeomanry, who recently died of pneumonia at Aldershot, and if a subscription for the purpose had to be collected in his native village.
MR. BRODRICK: There was no refusal on the part of the War Office to send home the body for interment. Private Dodd's friends were informed of his death, and an undertaker representing them came to the barracks and asked permission to remove the body for burial. Permission was granted and the body was removed. The undertaker asked no question as to the War Office defraying the expenses, nor has any communication been received from the man's friends on the subject. On application, the usual amount, representing the cost of burial at Aldershot, will be paid by the War Department.

YEOMANRY TRAINING.
MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether ho can inform the House upon what terms and conditions Yeomanry regiments will this year be called up for their annual training.
MR. BRODRICK: I will deal with this question on introducing the Army Estimates.
MR. HERMON-HODGE: Will the Report of the Yeomanry Committee then be in the hands of hon. Members?
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say. It has, however, been laid on the Table.

HAMPSHIRE YEOMANRY.
SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that several members of the Hampshire Yeomanry were attested and sworn in at Winchester on 12th February, when it was intimated to them that they would be required to join in three or four days, whereas they have not been required to join yet; whether he is aware that, although several of these young men gave up their employment to join the Yeomanry and are consequently without funds to pay for their board and lodging, on their applying at Winchester for a portion of the pay due to them since

183
12th February they were informed that they could receive no pay before joining; and whether, considering the pecuniary difficulties in which they are involved, orders may be given that these men should at once receive the pay due to them since 12th February.
MR. BRODRICK: The officer commanding the Hampshire Yeomanry paid the men their expenses and informed them that they would be entitled to draw their pay from the 12th. Instructions have been sent to this officer to carry out the regulations under which men should be regularly paid after being medically examined and attested from the date of attestation.

LITERATURE FOR TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
*MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any information can be given as to the disposal of books and papers sent out to men serving at the front in South Africa, and especially to the wounded in hospitals, whether any further parcels can now be sent, and how and to whom they may be addressed.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Parcels intended for individuals can be sent as heretofore, addressed to the man at his unit in South Africa. Parcels intended for distribution should be addressed to the Officer Commanding the Army Service Corps at Cape Town, marked for the use of the unit or hospital for which they are intended. They should be sent through the Embarking Staff Officer at Southampton, carriage paid to that port.

IRISH IMPERIAL YEOMEN—FACILITIES FOR SETTLEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and if so how many, of the Imperial Yeomanry raised in the midland counties of Ireland are yet at the front; whether promises were made to some of these men that their services would be rewarded when the Boer farms came to be distributed as spoils of war; and can he state whether any of these men have already left the forces to settle in the country.
LORD STANLEY: There is no information available to show how many men of the six Irish companies of the Imperial Yeomanry came from the midland counties of Ireland, or whether any of them left the force to settle in South Africa. Nothing is known of the promises alluded to, but it is contemplated that opportunities for settlement in these countries will be afforded to eligible men.

H.M.'S RESERVE REGIMENTS OF CAVALRY—CONDITIONS OF REENLISTMENT.
CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers and men of His Majesty's Reserve regiments of cavalry, on determining their engagements, will be invited to re-enlist on terms similar to those offered by the Royal Warrant of 23rd February, 1901, to soldiers now serving in the Royal Reserve battalions of infantry, or whether they will be discharged on completion of their year's service.
LORD STANLEY: The non-commissioned officers and men in question will be allowed to re-enlist under the terms of the Royal Warrant of the 31st March, 1900, issued as a special Army Order on the 28th April of that year.

PRIVATE JAMES RAMSEY, 1ST BATTALION ROYAL INNISKILLING; FUSILIERS.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of Private James Ramsey, 1st Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, who, although the time for which he enlisted with the colours, as well as his reserve time, has expired, is still at the front in South Africa; and whether immediate steps will be taken to have him sent home; and, if not, will he explain why he is detained.
LORD STANLEY: The Secretary of State's attention has not been called to this case, nor is there any reason why it should be so called. The man in question is liable under the terms of his attestation for Section D of the Army Reserve to serve on till the 10th of July next, unless demobilisation is ordered before that date.

NAVAL ENGINEERS AND ARTIFICERS.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state how many engine-room artificers and stokers have been induced during the current financial year to join the Navy; whether only 55 per cent, of the engine-room artificers, and only 59 per cent, of the number of the stokers, authorised by Parliament have been obtained; and whether, in view of the difficulty of obtaining proper supplies of men for these branches of the service, the conditions of employment will be revised and improved; whether the Admiralty advertised in December last for applications for assistant engineers for the Navy, distributing such advertisements throughout the various seaports for the purpose of ensuring applications; whether more than three applications were received; how many engineers were passed into the service in consequence of such advertisements; and whether any improvement in the conditions of service of engineers is contemplated.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): Two hundred and fifty engine-room artificers and 1,566 stokers were entered between 1st April, 1900, and 16th February, 1901. On the 1st instant 97 per cent, of the engine-room artificers voted by Parliament, and 98 per cent, of the stokers, were borne. There is not any difficulty experienced in obtaining sufficient men of both these ratings on existing terms. During a great part of the year restrictions have been placed on recruiting in order to keep within the numbers voted and to ensure the entry of only specially desirable men. The Admiralty caused advertisements to be inserted in two papers only—namely, The Engineer and Engineering—in December last for candidates for assistant engineers for temporary service in the Navy. Several applications were received, but only three were accepted as suitable. These three passed the required examination and were entered in the service. No alteration of a special nature is at present contemplated in the condition of service of engineers, but with a view to any improvement which is desirable in the best interests of the Navy, these officers, in common with all others, have their conditions of service always under consideration at the Admiralty.
Mr. WILLIAM ALLAN: I should like to ask if the failure of engine-room artificers to join is due to the nature of the test applied in the dockyards, it being gauge-making rather than practised engineering?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Probably the candidates are better able than the Admiralty to say what has prevented them from joining.

INDIA—PREVENTION OF FAMINE— IRRIGATION WORKS.
Mr. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any information has been obtained from the Governments of Bombay and of the Central Provinces, since the close of last session, as to any projects for the construction of reservoirs or embankments on the Nerbudda or Tapti rivers, with a view to the protection of the western part of the Central Provinces and of Gujerat from drought and famine; and, if no proposals of this kind have yet been made, will he take steps to ensure that early attention be given to this matter.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have received since the end of last session a Report from the Bombay Government in which it is stated that an irrigation tank is under construction which will irrigate a largo tract of country adjoining the Tapti river. The Government of India have most carefully considered the question of the extension of irrigation wherever practicable, with a view to the prevention of famine; and I will forward a copy of the hon. Member's question and of my answer to India.

CHINA—INFLICTION OF FINES BY GERMAN AUTHORITIES.
MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the German authorities in China are extorting from the local authorities sums of money without consultation with the representatives of the other Powers; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries upon this point.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): We under-

187
stand that fines have been inflicted in certain cases by the German military authorities, but this would be a matter within the discretion of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.

SAMOA DISTURBANCES—BRITISH CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.
MR. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all the claims for compensation for losses suffered by British subjects during the disturbances in Samoa have now been received by the Foreign Office; and whether any of these claims have been settled; and, if not, can he state the cause of delay.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is not known that there are any claims for compensation for losses suffered by British subjects during the disturbances in Samoa other than those received and noted at the Foreign Office. None of these claims have been settled, the arguments of the British and American Governments in relation to the military operations in Samoa not having yet been presented to the arbitrator. With regard to claims not occasioned by the military operations His Majesty's Government are in communication with the German Government.

CRETE—PAPERS ON ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL CONDITION.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state when the Papers relating to the administration and financial condition of Crete, promised on the 11th of December last, will be laid upon the Table.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I very much regret the delay that has taken place. The Papers are being prepared aid upon the Table as soon as possible.

ELECTRIC SUPPLY BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES—RETURN OF EXPENDITURE.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant the Return showing the results of the expenditure on the supply of electricity by local authorities on the Paper this day.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I think that the time
188
has come when a Return giving the expenditure on the supply of electrical energy is desirable. The form of the Return suggested by my lion, friend is, I think, capable of improvement. I will consider the matter and communicate further with him.

CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY—VIBRATION.
*MR. COMPTON RICKETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has satisfied himself that the vibration of the traffic on the Central London Railway is a cause of injury and annoyance to owners and occupiers of the property adjoining the line of route; and, if so, whether he is prepared to advise Parliament to protect the property in the neighbourhood of the proposed now electric lines either by means of improved construction and traction or by compulsory purchase of such property.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With reference to the first part of the hon. Member's question an expert committee is sitting to inquire into the matter, and until it reports I am not in a position to express any opinion. With regard to the second part, the Bills dealing with the new electric lines have been introduced in another place. I understand it is probable that a proposal will be made to refer to a joint committee the consideration of several questions affecting them. Should such proposal be made I hope this House will agree to it.

BEER POISONING IN THE STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES.
MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Arsenical Poisoning Commission as to the similarity of the symptoms of poisoning from arsenicised beer and from plumbism, and that Professors Oliver and Thorpe have reported that beer is largely taken in the Staffordshire Potteries as an antidote to plumbism; and whether many of the reported cases of plumbism in the four last months of 1900 were cases of arsenical poisoning.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Having made in

189
quiry into this matter I find that during the last four months of 1900 three cases reported as cases of plumbism were considered by the Medical Inspector of Factories and Workshops to be really cases of arsenical poisoning, and were excluded from the Returns of lead-poisoning. The cases are always carefully scrutinised for mistakes in reporting, and there is no reason to think there were any other such cases not detected.
MR. COGHILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any complaint as to the character of the beer supplied by the local breweries?
*MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir.

DEFENCE OF POOR PRISONERS.
MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that provision is made for the defence of poor prisoners in Germany, France, Denmark, the United States, Scotland, and several of our colonies; also that the Bar council have recommended in favour of making similar provision here, and whether he intends taking any steps in the matter.
*MR. RITCHIE: I do not see my way to take any action in this matter.

FATALITY AT HOOTON'S FACTORY, NOTTINGHAM.
MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of George Benton, which took place on 1st February at Messrs. Hooton's factory, Nottingham; and will he inquire whether the planing machine by which Benton was crushed to death was erected before or after 1st January, 1896, and whether, in view of the terrible nature of the accident, ho will consider the advisability of applying the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1895 to all self-acting machines irrespective of the date of the erection of the factory.
*MR. RITCHIE: Inquiry is being made into this case.

SPECIAL RULES IN THE POTTERY TRADE.
MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what date the proposed draft
190
special rules, suggested to employers in a Home Office circular of December, 1899, and put before the employees in August, 1900, which have recently been formally circulated as proposed special rules, were communicated to the workpeople employed in the pottery trade.
*MR. RITCHIE: The first draft of the rules was published in the newspapers circulating in the pottery district immediately after it had been communicated to the employers. There is no provision in the Factory Acts requiring that the rules should be formally proposed to the workpeople in the same way as to the employers; but any person interested can be (and has been) supplied with a copy for the asking, and I have directed the inspector for the district to furnish copies of the rules as now proposed to representative workpeople.

POOR LAW VALUATION.
DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the average poor law valuation per head of population in England, and what is the highest and what the lowest valuation per head.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): In 1899 the amount of rateable value per head of the estimated population of England and Wales was £5 10s. 8½d. There are no very recent figures which would give the information asked for in the latter part of the question; but in 1894 the highest amount of rateable value per head of the population according to the Census of 1891, of any poor law union in England and Wales was—excluding the City of London, the circumstances of which are exceptional—£14 5s. 8½d., and the lowest £2 1s. 6d.

USE OF PRESERVATIVES IN FOOD.
MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Loca1 Government Board if any Report has yet been received from the Departmental Committee appointed in 1899 to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring matter in food.
MR. WALTER LONG: The Report has not at present been received, but I understand that it is in preparation.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACTS.
MR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisableness of appointing a Committee of the House to consider the administration of local authorities under the various Housing of the Working Classes Acts, with the view to further assisting authorities in their efforts to deal with the problem.
MR. WALTER LONG: As I intimated in answer to the hon. Member yesterday, I am considering the whole question.

LONDON WATER INQUIRY COSTS.
MR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the legal expenses of counsel representing the various London local authorities in connection with the recent inquiry into the abortive regulations proposed by the London water companies will have to be borne by the London ratepayers, or whether it is within the competence of the Local Government Board to give the costs of the inquiry against the water companies.
MR. WALTER LONG: The Local Government Board have no power to require the water companies to pay the costs referred to in the question, and I may add that if I had such powers I should not consider they ought to be exercised in this case.
MR. MACNAMARA: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to what the costs are likely to amount to?
MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; of course not.

GREAT SAUGHALL PARISH COUNCIL.
MR. HOULT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the constitution of the last parish council of Great Saughall, and to the circumstances under which the outgoing chairman was reelected, whereby a majority was given to the party defeated at the election of parish councillors; and whether he will take steps to prevent this occurring again.
MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware of the circumstances of the case referred to in the question. The matter is not one in which the Local Government Board are empowered to take action; but they have expressed their opinion that as the outgoing chairman of the parish council was a candidate for reelection he could not properly act as chairman of the meeting of the council during the election, and I trust that in future this opinion will be acted upon.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE REGISTERS— INCLEMENT WEATHER.
MR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is now prepared to say how far it may be found practicable to carry into effect his suggestion of July last, made during the discussion in the Standing Committee on Law of the Elementary Education Act, 1900, under which schools would not be required to mark the registers for purposes of averaging attendance on occasiorrs upon which the number of children present might be much reduced by reason of the inclemency of the weather.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Board of Education are now considering how far, in circumstances such as are described in the question, the managers may be relieved from the existing obligation to mark the registers and formally open the school.

COUNTY COURT FEES.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there has vet been a reduction of county court fees, in accordance with the promises on the subject, last made by the late Secretary to the Treasury and the late Attorney General.
THE FINANCIAL SECEETARY TO THE TEEASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): A Committee has inquired into this subject, and a revised Fee Order will come into operation on the 1st April next. The result will be a considerable reduction of the fees in the class of case which the Committee considered to call for relief.

FOREIGN TELEGRAMS.
*SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can inform the House of the average time of transmission of telegrams between London and New York, London and Paris, and London and Berlin.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not in a position to give the time of transmission of telegrams to New York, as the business is in the hands of the companies. As to the time between London and Paris and London and Berlin, he has had the telegrams of the 26th examined. The wires on that day were working well, and he finds that for the twenty-four hours the average time from the handing in of the messages at the counter to their receipt at the place of destination was thirty-two minutes in the case of Paris and thirty-five in the case of Berlin. In the busiest hours the time was longer, especially in the case of Berlin, where, however, he hopes to improve matters by the laying of an additional cable which is now being manufactured.

SORTING TESTS AT MOUNT PLEASANT.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the auxiliary sorters at Mount Pleasant are now being called upon to sort at the rate of 1,000 in thirty minutes, with twenty-five mis-sorts allowed, and that the majority of these men are only occupied for about forty-five minutes per week upon sorting, he will consider the advisability of modifying the test; and can he say what is the present penalty in case of failure as regards the above-mentioned test.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Auxiliary sorters are not required to sort at the rate mentioned. That rate has for many years past been regarded as the test of efficiency for the established sorting staff, but it has not hitherto been exacted from the auxiliaries. No penalty for inefficiency in sorting on the part of these auxiliaries has been imposed. It has been reported, however, that serious inconvenience involving delay to correspondence was being caused by the slow and incorrect sorting of some of them,
194
and steps have been taken by means of additional teaching and practice to afford them an opportunity for improvement. If it should be found, however, that, notwithstanding these facilities, any auxiliary sorter is unable to attain to a reasonable proficiency, it may become necessary to dispense with his services.

LLANDRILLO (MERIONETHSHIRE) POSTMASTER.
MR. OSMOND-WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the newly appointed postmaster at Llandrillo, Merionethshire, is an innkeeper holding an innkeeper's licence; and whether it is in accordance with the Post Office regulations for a postmaster to be an innkeeper.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The person recently appointed sub-postmaster of Llandrillo, Merionethshire, is an innkeeper, but the appointment was made conditional on his giving up that business and providing unlicensed premises for the post office. It is not the practice of the Department to appoint to such posts persons holding a licence when other eligible candidates, equally suitable, can be found. In this instance it was not considered that, apart from the licence, any of the other candidates was: as suitable as the one appointed.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE—WHITE ESTATE, BANTRY.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, approximately, when the sale of the White Estate, near Bantry, which was decided on some years ago, will take place.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDAM,): The solicitors having carriage of the proceedings state that the rental for sale of the holdings on this estate will probably be settled in the course of a month. A request under the 40th section of the Act of 1896 can then be issued.

PLUMBRIDGE ASSAULT CASE—DISCHARGE OF THE PRISONERS MORRIS.
*MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

195
Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of two brothers named Morris, who were lately sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, at the petty sessions of Plumbridge, North Tyrone, though they themselves had been assaulted and beaten by the complainants, on the occasion which was the subject of the order; and whether he can state if a memorial on their behalf has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, when will his decision in the matter be made known.
MR. WYNDHAM: The discharge of the two prisoners referred to in this question was ordered by the Lord Lieutenant on Wednesday last.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN CO. LONGFORD.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how much of the £40,000 grant-in-aid for erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland under the Land Act of 1896 has been passed to the credit of the Local Taxation Account for the Unions of Granard, Longford, and Ballymahon, in the county of Longford, and at what periods are these sums paid over.
MR. WYNDHAM: The total payments to the 31st March, 1900, under Section 5 of the Land Act of 1891, as amended by the 39th section of the Act of 1896, has been as follows:—to Granard Union, £291 4s. 6d.; to Longford Union, £494 0s. 8d.; and to Ballymahon Union, £779 2s. 4d. The distribution of the grant in respect of each financial year takes place about the end of March.

POLICE PRECAUTIONS AT IRISH RAILWAY STATIONS.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that every railway station in Ireland is in charge of a train constable, whose duty it is to take notes of arrivals and departures of persons by train, particularly those prominently engaged in Irish political life; how long this system has been in operation; and whether it is proposed to continue it.
MR. WYNDHAM: The lion. Gentleman has, I think, been misinformed. The
196
statements in the question are devoid of foundation.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I have not been misinformed. I know it from personal observation.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—RECRUITING.
MR. J, P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, contrary to a promise made in this House in June, 1896, that recruiting for the Royal Irish Constabulary would be discontinued, recruiting for that force is going on again; can he state the number of men called up during 1900, and the number yet required to keep up the force; and will he lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the general distribution of these men throughout the country for the years 1899–1900.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am aware that recruits are being enlisted for the constabulary; this is done to fill normal vacancies occurring in the force by retirements, deaths, etc. No promise was given in 1896 of the nature indicated in the first paragraph. The number of recruits admitted in 1900 was 620; the current rate of waste is about 46 men per month. In answer to the last paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the table at page 76 of the volume of Irish Criminal Statistics for 1899, which has been presented to Parliament and which shows the distribution of the force at the end of September, 1899.
MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand it is the intention of the authorities in Ireland to keep up the numbers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
MR. WYNDHAM: There has been a considerable reduction in recent years. We propose to keep the force at its present level.

IMPERIAL GRANTS-IN-AID OF IRISH LOCAL RATES.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount of the contribution from Imperial sources to Irish local authorities in aid of local rates for the years 1898 and 1899.
MR. WYNDHAM: I think my hon. friend will find the information ho desires at pages 16 and 17 of Parliamentary Return No. 337, and page 12 of Return No. 336, both of last year.

CASTLEBAR PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICT—POLICE PROSECUTIONS.
MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of prosecutions in the Castlebar Petty Sessions District for the alleged trespass of cattle on the public roads during the years 1897, 1898, and 1899, respectively.
MR. WYNDHAM: The number of prosecutions for the offence mentioned was seventeen in 1897; fourteen in 1898; and twenty nine in 1899, resulting in fifteen, twelve, and twenty-nine convictions respectively.
MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of prosecutions in the Pontoon, Bally vary, and Turlough police sub-districts within the Castlebar Petty Sessions District for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899 respectively, and the result of each prosecution; and, whether he can also state the number of times that the police in these sub-districts made seizures of illicit whiskey, or the material for its manufacture, for which no person was made amenable, together with the date of each such seizure.
MR. WYNDHAM: The information desired in the first paragraph is being prepared, and will be sent to the hon. Member when complete. I have forwarded to him a statement in answer to the second paragraph; it contains a number of dates which could not conveniently be read in the form of a reply to a question.

LICENSING LAWS, IRELAND—EQUAL VOTING ON MAGISTERIAL BENCHES.
MR. BOYLE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the decision in the King's Bench Division in Ireland, in the case of King (M'Intyre) versus The County Court Judge and Justices of the County Donegal, in which it was decided that when the voting of the magistrates
198
on the bench at licensing sessions is equal no adjudication on the matter at issue has taken place; and, whether this decision applies to cases heard at petty sessions courts in Ireland when the Bench is equally divided.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The King's Bench decided in the case mentioned that where the justices are equally decided on the question of the truth, sufficiency and validity of an objection to the granting of a licence lodged under the third section of the Licensing Act of 1883, no adjudication can take place. Whether the same result would follow in any other case will depend upon the wording of the statute on which the preceedings are grounded.

MR. T. D. GIBSON, R.M.—ALLEGATIONS OF PARTIALITY.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations have been received by the Irish Government from the Roman Catholic priests and people of Portadown requesting the removal of Mr. T. D. Gibson, R.M., from that district, as the Roman Catholics, owing to his decisions in party cases at Portadown petty sessions, had lost all confidence in his impartiality; and whether the Government will have him removed to some other district and appoint another resident magistrate in that district.
MR. WYNDHAM: Representations have been received by the Irish Government requesting the removal from Portadown of Mr. Gibson, the resident magistrate stationed there. These representations have received my own personal attention, and I am satisfied that the imputations of partiality brought against Mr. Gibson are not borne out by the facts. Both he and the District Inspector of Constabulary, against whom, I may mention, complaints have also been freely made, have a difficult and trying duty to discharge at times in Portadown, the great bulk of the population of which is Protestant, and I have no reason to believe that either of these officers has discharged his duty otherwise than in an impartial manner. It is not the intention of the Government to remove Mr. Gibson from Portadown.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Did you not get this information from the police?
MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; I have personally gone very carefully into the whole question.

BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) RETURN.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Return moved for and allowed on the 16th day of last July respecting Bankruptcy, Ireland, has been prepared; and, if not, when it may be expected.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Return in question was laid on the Table on the 6th December last. If the hon. Member has not obtained a printing order in the usual way he should now do so.

IRISH BUTTER—EXCESSIVE WATER.
MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture is aware that prosecutions have been taken by local authorities in the north of England against alleged excessive water in Irish butter; and whether, in view of the fact that no standard has yet been legally established to define the percentage of water in butter, the Department will take steps to protect the interests of Irish agriculturists.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Department is aware that prosecutions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts have been instituted by the local authorities in the north of England for alleged excess of water in Irish butter. The question of the desirability of fixing a legal standard, or standards, as to the percentage of water in butter, is engaging attention, and the Department is in communication with the Board of Agriculture in Great Britain on the subject.
MR. O'MARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
MR. WYNDHAM: I have done so. I have said the Department is in communication with the Board of Agriculture on the subject.
MR. O'MARA: Will steps be taken to prevent prosecutions?
MR. WYNDHAM: The percentage of water admissible appears to be a matter of doubt, and the Departments responsible for protecting the interests of agriculture are in consultation with a view to arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. No more can be said at present.
MR. O'MARA: But—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been fully answered.

PROPOSED POLICE BARRACK AT EDENDERRY.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if representations have been made to the Irish Government or the constabulary authorities by the Roman Catholic priests and people of Portadown, county Armagh, requesting them to establish a police barrack at Edenderry, Portadown being an Orange quarter in the town whore repeated attacks have been made upon Roman Catholics passing through that district; and will he explain why the promise of the county inspector of police for the county of Armagh to have a barrack established in that district has up to the present not been carried out; and if the Government will establish a barrack at Edenderry in the immediate future.
MR. WYNDHAM: Representations have been made to Government in favour of the establishment of a police barrack at Edenderry, Portadown. There is no suitable house in the locality at present available for the purpose. The station will be formed as soon as practicable.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Is it not a fact that no difficulty is experienced when a site is wanted for a police hut in county Donegal?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

COUNTY WICKLOW MACISTRACY.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many Roman Catholics and how many Protestants there are in the county of Wicklow, how many Roman Catholic magistrates and how many Protestant magistrates in the county; also the number of Roman Catholic and Protestant magistrates appointed for the county Wicklow since August, 1895.
MR. WYNDHAM: According to the Census Returns of 1891 there were at that time 49,238 Roman Catholics and 12,644 Protestants of various denominations in the county Wicklow. The number of magistrates in the county is 134, of whom 108 are Protestants, twenty-four are Roman Catholics, and there are two whose religions are not known. Twenty -three Protestant magistrates, four Roman Catholic, and two whose religions are unknown have been appointed since August, 1895.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentlemen included in the list the justices who are ex-officio magistrates by reason of their being chairmen of local councils?
MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that.

SECURITIES FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR— RICE v. HALPIN.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the judgment in the King's Bench Division on 26th instant in the appeal case of District Inspector Rice, R.I.C., v. Halpin, confirming the decision but giving no costs. Is he aware that Judge Gibson characterised the power of magistrates in respect to cases in which they can impose upon defendants the obligation of giving security to be of good behaviour as unjust; and whether in view of the Lord Chief Justice's opinion that the law should be altered so as to conform to the law of England as altered by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, the Irish Law Officers of the Crown will take the necessary legislative steps for such alteration.
MR. ATKINSON: I have not as yet been able to obtain an authentic copy of the judgment of the Court, but from the daily press it would appear that the remarks of both the learned judges were applied to the inability of persons required to give securities to keep the peace and be of good behaviour in Ireland to give evidence before the magistrates on their own behalf as they are enabled to do in England under the 25th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. I would undertake to introduce a short Bill forthwith to assimilate the law in the two countries in this
202
respect if hon. Members from Ireland would give an assurance that they would treat it as an unopposed measure.

BUTTEVANT NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER'S SALARY.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what grounds have the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland paid William O'Callaghan, of Churchtown National School, Buttevant, on the scale of £64 per annum, while his predecessor's salary was £127 per annum; and whether, if this provisional salary is increased at the final fixing of teachers' salaries, the difference will be refunded this teacher.
MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. William O'Callaghan was assistant teacher in Churchtown Male National School up to the 31st March, 1900. He was promoted to the rank of principal teacher on the 1st April, 1900, and in accordance with the rules sanctioned by the Treasury last year he was granted provisionally as his initial income as principal his former income as assistant—namely, £64. The amount of income of his predecessor was £129 per annum, and was based on his average income for the preceding three year's. This income was personal to the predecessor of Mr. O'Callaghan. In all cases in which initial incomes are fixed, on final revision, at rates higher than those at which they were provisionally fixed, the difference will be paid from the 1st April, 1900.

IRISH EDUCATION GRANT.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the money known as the balance of residual grant, which teachers in Irish national schools get before 1st April each year, is meant for the financial year ended 31st March or for the year ended 31st December.
MR. WYNDHAM: The year meant is the financial year.

LIMERICK LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sum of £1,596 6s. 7d. due for the maintenance of patients in the Limerick Lunatic

203
Asylum from the 1st of January, 1899, to the 31st March, 1899, and certified by the Local Government Auditor as due in respect of capitation grant for pauper lunatics maintained in the asylum for the period stated, will ultimately have to be paid out of the rates if the Treasury do not pay it; and, if so, seeing that these patients who are entitled to rate-in-aid will be entirely supported out of the local rates during the period stated, and that a similar state of things exists with regard to other lunatic asylums in Ireland entitled to this rate-in-aid, whether he will take steps for the payment of this capitation grant.
MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the payment of the grant in aid of the maintenance of pauper lunatics for the period mentioned has formed the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the committee of management of the Limerick Asylum. I am afraid I cannot add to the views of Government already expressed.
MR. LUNDON: Will the Gentleman take any this money paid?
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member misunderstands. The grant is always calculated on the figures of the preceding year. What has happened is this. The financial year, which ends in March, has been substituted for the calendar year, which ends in December, and the first quarter of 1900 takes the place of the first quarter of 1899. The figures of 1900 are more favourable, and the asylum has therefore gained by the change.
MR. CULLINAN: Is there not a great deal of dissatisfaction among the Asylum Boards generally on this matter, and have not financial experts—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now entering on a debate.

WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL APPEAL.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal, on Monday last, in the case of the Wexford County Council against the Local Government Board.
MR. ATKINSON: Yes, this will be done.
MR. FLYNN: Will it be available for distribution among the Irish Members?
MR. ATKINSON: After it has been laid on the Table of the House.

CLONES RAILWAY STATION.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a man was killed recently at Clones railway station, county Monaghan, owing to the state of the island platform there, and whether he can state what course he intends to take to get this island platform improved, and thereby avert further loss of life.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have made inquiry as to this case, and am informed that the unfortunate man's death did not occur owing to the state of the island platform. The Board are, however, in communication with the railway company as to the platform and the level-crossing at this station.
MR. DALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor promised to look into this matter, and that nothing has since been done?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

IRISH LIGHTS BOARD,
MR. FIELD: I beg to Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several harbour boards, including Dublin and Belfast, have frequently and publicly expressed their disapproval of the constitution and the working of the Irish Lights Commission; and whether, in view of those facts, the Government will consider the advisability of re-forming and reconstituting the Irish Lights Board.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; such representations have from time to time been made. As I have already informed the hon. Member, His Majesty's Government do not, as at present advised, contemplate the introduction of a, Bill dealing with the constitution of the Irish Lights Board.
MR. FIELD: In view of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask why legislation is delayed when

205
everyone interested is anxious that the Board should be re-formed?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot do that in answer to a question.

RAMELTON COASTGUARD STATION.
MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the proposed abolition of the coastguard station at Ramelton, county Donegal; whether he is aware that the said station has been in existence for over 100 years; that in former times a trade in contraband goods carried on through the port at Ramelton necessitated the keeping of a staff of seven officers at the station; and that a considerable trade is still carried on between Ramelton and foreign and home ports; and can he explain the reasons of the proposed abolition of the station.
MR. PRETYMAN: It is proposed to abolish this station in consequence of a report from the Board of Customs that its retention is no longer necessary from a revenue point of view, and the Admiralty do not consider it necessary to maintain it for other purposes.

POSTAL ARRANGEMENT AT EYERIES, CO. CORK.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial from the priests and people of Eyeries, county Cork, has been forwarded to the Secretary, General Post Office, Dublin, showing the necessity that exists for a Sunday service to Eyeries; whether a resolution from the District Council, Castletown Be re, also has been sent; and whether, in view of the importance of Eyeries as a fishing station, he will see that this want is supplied.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A memorial was received from the residents of Eyeries last year asking for a Sunday postal service, and the District Council of Castletown Bere forwarded a resolution supporting the request. From the inquiry which was made it was found that the cost of the service in the district already greatly exceeded the revenue from the correspondence, so that the expense of providing a Sunday post was not warranted. The Postmaster General regrets that in the circumstances he would not be justified in complying with the request of the inhabitants.
MR. GILHOOLY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very important fishing station which is attended by a number of American buyers? The cost would only be small.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that it is a very important fishing station, but the postal business connected with the fishery is very small and, if I remember rightly, does not pay half the present cost of the service.
MR. GILHOOLY: But what about the public convenience?

SCHULL LETTER CARRIER'S WAGES.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the rate of wage given to the letter carrier in the town of Schull, county Cork, and whether ho will have it increased.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The attention of the Postmaster General had not been called to the rate of wage given to the letter carrier at Schull, county Cork. According to the official records, the wages paid are in accordance with the usual scale for the duty performed, which occupies loss than an hour and a half daily; but inquiry is being made into the matter.

BALLINACOR POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will I explain why the rural messenger between Crossroads branch post office, Killy-gordon, county Donegal, and the town-land of Sallywood, only delivers to a few houses in the townland of Ballinacor the letters in the morning delivery, and then proceeds to serve the townlands of Portobello, Kilcaddon, and Carrickshandrum; and, after serving these townlands, returns and serves the remaining portion of the townland of Ballinacor about ten o'clock in the morning; is he aware that the said townland of Ballinacor is only a few yards from the branch office at Crossroads, and is the first townland the messenger enters in the morning; and, seeing that representations have been made to the Secretary of the Post Office at Dublin complaining of the present

207
arrangements for delivery of letters in the townland of Ballinacor, and that school teachers have complained that they do not get delivery of their letters before ten o'clock, and are thus precluded from making returns by the next post to the Offices of National Education, and that the present postal arrangements in the district impose unnecessary labour on the messenger, whether directions could be given to him to proceed on his outward journey along the county road through the centre of the townland of Ballinacor.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The route followed by the postman from the Crossroads post office to Sallywood has been the subject of careful consideration, and the present arrangement, by which a large majority of the letters are delivered on the outward journey, is undoubtedly the best for the general convenience of the public. The postman is not overworked, and the circumstances do not justify an alteration of the post.

ENNISCORTHY POST OFFICE.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state when the building of the new post office at Enniscorthy will be commenced.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Public Works report that they hope to be able to begin the new post office building at Enniscorthy in May next.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE BILL.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Irish Land Purchase Bill will be introduced.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I can give no information to the hon. Gentleman.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—DURATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury upon how many occasions in the fourteen years 1887 to 1900 has the debate on the Address been finished to admit of the second Wednesday in the session being open for private Members' Bills.
MR. CALDWELL: I rise to order. I wish to know if this is not a question dealing with facts which appear on the journals of the House, and which are as accessible to the hon. Member who asks the question as to the Leader of the House? I wish to know, too, in regard to the insinuation it is meant to convey, whether—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now commenting on the motives of the hon. Gentleman who asks the question. As to his point of order, I may say that if this question had been brought to my notice I think I should have said that the Clerk was justified in refusing it, on the ground that it asks for information not in the special possession of Ministers, and which can be obtained out of Hansard by the hon. Member himself.
SIR E ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are not questions of this kind constantly asked in order to draw in an easy way public attention to an important subject?
*MR. SPEAKER: I quite admit that an effort is frequently made to make a speech by means of a question, but that is irregular.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is it not true that resistance to; form of question—which is frequently used— generally conies from those who anticipate that the answer will be inconvenient to them?
[No answer was returned, and original question was not replied to.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  CHARITABLE AGENCIES FOR THE RELIEF OF WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution:—"That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the various Charitable Agencies now in operation, and the funds available for relieving Widows and Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors, with a view to ensuring that the funds subscribed by local and private benevolence are applied to the best advantage in supplementing a scheme of Government Pensions for Widows and Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors who have lost their lives in war;" as desired by this House.
  NEW BILLS.
    BOROUGH FUNDS ACT (1872) AMENDMENT (LONDON.)
    Bill to amend the Borough Funds Act, 1872,ordered to be brought in by Captain Jessel, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Boulnois, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Whitmore.
    BOROUGH FUNDS ACT (1872) AMENDMENT (LONDON) BILL.
    "To amend the Borough Funds Act, 1872," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 24th April and to be printed. [Bill 74.]
    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND).
    Bill to give the ratepayers a direct veto on the Liquor Traffic in their respective areas in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hunter Craig, Mr. Colville, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Black, Sir William Dunn, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Wallace, Mr. John D. Hope, and Dr. Farquharson.
    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To give the ratepayers a direct veto on the Liquor Traffic in their respective areas in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 19th June, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
    CHEAP TRAINS.
    Bill to amend the Law relating to Cheap Trains for the working classes, ordered to be brought in by Captain Norton, Mr. Buxton, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Scott, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Dr. Macnamara.
    CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to Cheap Trains for working classes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO.
    Bill to enable localities by a direct Veto to prevent the issue of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caine, Mr. Henry
    210
    Joseph Wilson, Mr. Burt, Mr. Whittaker, and Mr. Channing.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
    "To enable localities by a direct Veto to prevent the issue of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors," presented, and read the first time; to be read a I second time upon Wednesday, 19th June, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
    LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND).
    Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Licensing Authorities in Police Burghs in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colville, Sir John Leng, Mr. Hunter Craig, Mr. Black, Mr. Caldwell, 'Mr. Parker Smith, and Mr. John D. Hope.
    LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Law with respect to: the Licensing Authorities in Police Burghs in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
    TRADE MARKS.
    Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Trade Marks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Alban Gibbs, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Kearley, Mr. M'Konna, and Lord Henry Bentinck.
    TRADE MARKS BILL.
    "To consolidate and amend the Law relating to Trade Marks," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
    HOSPITALS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES).
    Bill providing for the exemption of Hospitals from local Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawson Walton, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Warr, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
    HOSPITALS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) BILL.
    "Providing for the exemption of Hospitals from Local Rates," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

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

  CIVIL SERVICE (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    Class I.
    I. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
    *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman who was speaking the preceding evening when the House adjourned had given a somewhat remarkable explanation in dealing with the question of the Census buildings. It would be recollected that he declared the buildings had been enlarged in consequence of the increased staff which had been necessitated by the alterations made in the form of the Census Returns. Now, he did not think that that adequately explained the additional Vote which was being asked for. The alterations made in the form of the census were comparatively small, and yet the Committee was asked for a supplementary sum of £2,100 in addition to the £4,000 voted last year. The Supplementary Estimate represented, in fact, over half of the original Estimate. The increase could not be accounted for by the removal of the very inconvenient buildings in Charles Street, Whitehall, which were used when the last census was taken. Undoubtedly those buildings were not suited to the purposes to which they were applied, and he was very sorry indeed that the money now voted was not to be used for providing proper accommodation for tin; clerks. The buildings were made of galvanised iron lined with wood and other materials, and bearing in mind that much of the work had to be done at a period of the year when great heat prevailed, it was clear that those engaged upon it had to
    212
    labour under conditions injurious to their health and detrimental to the efficiency of their work. Now, these old buildings were simply to be removed from one site to another, and a further building of the same type was to be provided for the fifty additional female clerks who were to be employed in the compilation of the census. In this matter he did not think they got good value for their money, and, in view of the enormous expenditure to which this country was committed for war purposes, he did feel that it was the duty of every Member to watch the Estimates very closely in order to see that at any rate the money was not wasted. Would it not have been better for the right hon. Gentleman, in framing the Estimate, to have considered whether the money could not have been spent more usefully, cither in hiring a better building, or by making a beginning by way of providing permanent offices for census purposes? It seemed to him a very dangerous piece of economy to use buildings of that kind for the storage of documentary evidence in view of the danger of destruction by fire. A wooden house covered with galvanised iron was certainly not a suitable place in which to keep public documents collected at the cost of such enormous expenditure and trouble. It seemed to him that they were by no means getting value for their money, for the only return they were apparently to have for the additional estimate of £2,100 was the removal of three or four iron buildings from one place to another and the provision of an additional one. He really could not understand how so much money could be spent on the work, and he was driven to the conclusion that this particular Estimate afforded one more illustration of the miscalculations of which the framers of the various estimates had been guilty. He thought they were entitled to some explanation in regard to that, as well as in respect of the large Supplementary Vote asked for in connection with Hertford House and the Imperial institute. The case of the Imperial Institute and the London University was an equally remarkable instance. In the last Estimates £8,770 were voted for the adaptation of the buildings for use by the London University, and now no less than £9,960 addi-

    213
    tional were asked for. Surely £18,000 was a large amount for adapting the buildings for the use of the university. Even if preparations were being made for a teaching university, the original estimate ought at any rate to have been much nearer the amount actually required. The London University would also come up under another Vote in regard to the preparation of a laboratory which was necessary for carrying on the examining purposes of the university. Then there was an additional Vote of £3,000 for the Patent Office. All these matters indicated a laxity of circulation which ought not to exist in public-affairs. Any private firm which carried on its business under such conditions would soon be in a condition of bankruptcy. In these times when, considering the burden the country was likely to have to bear in the near future, economy ought to be the great consideration in connection with public expenditure, he felt hound to call the attention of the Committee to these points.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLITremarked that, with regard to the Imperial Institute, many of the acts which had had to be done were not discovered to be necessary until the University moved into the buildings. One of the chief objects of the reorganisation had been to make the University a teaching body, and for that purpose many rooms, though perhaps not exactly class-rooms at present, were required for the examination of both the internal and external students and for the enlarged work contemplated on the part of the University. But however much the Vote had been, there were still one or two things urgently required to lie done. The sanitary arrangements were not at all satisfactory, and in the case of the large hall for examinations the ventilation was so bad as to be a positive disadvantage to the students who were examined. Not only the University, but also the Civil Service candidates were affected by this, as they were examined in the same building, and for such occasions the conditions ought to be made as suitable as possible, as the tenure of this hall by the University had been an express condition of the removal to South Kensington, which had been very re-
    214
    luctantly consented to by himself and other members of the Senate. There was also a question of fees and payments to examiners at present between the Senate and the Treasury, and if the latter took the fees to the end of the financial year, it ought to bear all expenses to the same date, in order that the University might start clear with the not too liberal grant which was suggested. The attempt to get back the large hall primarily for the Civil Service, as a condition of the proposed new grant, would be very strongly resisted by the Senate. The chemical laboratory was also badly ventilated, and this should be attended to without delay.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEpointed out, as a matter in which many Members were interested, that no provision was made in the census arrangements for a religious census. He did not agree with the complaint with regard to the money spent in arrangements for the housing of the Wallace collection. It was not easy to spend too much money on housing works of art. He congratulated the British public on having obtained this magnificent collection, but regretted that some of the pictures were not given to Ireland, seeing that very large estates, known as the Wallace Estates, used to be held in Ireland, from, the rental of which estates, he imagined, a good deal of the money which purchased these pictures was provided. With regard to the adaptation of the Imperial Institute for the London University, he quite agreed that these buildings should be made convenient and comfortable for the people who used them. The Vote, however, would not excite much sympathy on the Irish benches, seeing that it provided nearly £10,000 practically as an endowment of a university in England, where there were so many universities, whereas a university for Irish Catholics was denied. If for no other reason he would challenge a division on this Vote as a protest against the continued neglect of Ireland in the matter of university education. As to the Supplementary Vote for the introduction and extension of electric lighting in public buildings in England, he hoped it would lead to a similar introduction in the public buildings of Ireland.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the question particularly raised was that there were a number of Supplementary Votes, the large majority of which ought not to appear as Supplementary Estimates at all, but should have been foreseen and included in the original Estimates. That was the point the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner endeavoured to meet on the previous evening, but his explanations were not altogether satisfactory. Several items were disposed of on the ground that they were advantageous, but that was not the ground at all on which they were objected to. In reply to requests for information the right hon. Gentleman said that he could give information with regard to new items, but not with regard to old.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)explained that the complaint was that no particulars were given on the paper in regard to anything except items appearing under subhead "A," to which he replied that it had always been the practice, not only in Supplemental Estimates but also in the original Estimates, to give the new works under subhead "A" in full, while the others were in general terms.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas sorry he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. The rule was all very well when there were very few Supplementary Estimates or none at all, but there were now an unprecedented number, and it was only right and just that the information which had been given across the table should have been printed on the Estimates themselves. The reply on some of the points to which the previous evening ho (the speaker) directed attention was inadequate and unsatisfactory. The expenditure for extensions of the War Office, being due to the pressure of the war, was properly made the subject of a Supplementary Estimate, because in the ordinary way it could not be foreseen, especially by the present Government. The argument with regard to the Census buildings was that since the original estimate was voted it had been determined to obtain further information in the census, involving a certain amount of
    216
    additional expenditure. What were the alterations which would increase the cost by no less than one-third of the original sum? There was a great deal of force in the contention that with such large expenditure there should be something in the nature of a permanent building rather than a tin house, which was not only useless in the future, but dangerous to health. As to the £3,000 extra for the Patent Office extension, it was said that that was to provide library accommodation. If there was one thing more than another which might have been anticipated, or in which there was no possible urgency for a few months, surely it was the provision of library accommodation for the Patent Office. This was another illustration of the absolute laxity prevailing in regard to the Estimates, and of the manner in which, very largely in consequence of their strength in the House, the Government were able and willing to allow things to be done, but in which, if their majority was smaller, they would never dare to present them to the House. There was another item for the erection of a new Die and Medal Department. Was that a matter of urgent necessity? The right hon. Gentleman did not argue that point, and therefore he did not see that he had any right to put it in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. He said nothing in regard to the very large expenditure upon electric lighting, and that was a matter which ought to be provided in the original Estimate, and which might have stood over for the new Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything in regard to the general proposition which was discussed last night as to why these Supplementary Estimates should be of such an enormous amount, covering a larger number of Votes—twenty-nine, with seventy-six sub-divisions—than any other previous Supplementary Estimates, lie thought they were entitled to have some information from the Government why it was that there had been this laxity in regard to the Estimates, and if there had been a long discussion in regard to these different items the fault was entirely with the Government themselves. If this Supplementary Estimate had been introduced with proper information it would have been passed last night. They had to drag their information from the

    217
    right hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House, and that was the reason why this prolonged discussion had taken place, and he hoped it would continue until they got fuller information in regard to those matters.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: With regard to the general charge made by the hon. Member who has just sat down, regarding the want of information, that is a matter which does not devolve upon me. I am not responsible for the preparation of the Supplementary Estimates as a whole, but I am responsible for those items which come more particularly under my management.
    As to the question raised by the hon. Member opposite in regard to the Census buildings. I gave an explanation last night which I am sorry he did not think entirely satisfactory. I pointed out that this excess was caused because when in 1899–90 this Estimate for the Census buildings was prepared, it was thought that the buildings which had been sufficient for the staff which conducted the last census would have been sufficient upon the present occasion. Since that amount was estimated the temporary buildings had been moved, and it was found that additional accommodation was required, especially for the female staff. In addition to that, in order to meet many of the objections which the hon. Member so justly pointed out with regard to the nature of the buildings, and at the request of the Registrar General, we spent money on the extra ventilation of these buildings, and fitting them with the electric light, which makes them much healthier to work in. We have, therefore, done something to meet the requirements of the people who work in those buildings, and in regard to the electric light it was not foreseen that an installation of this light would be required.
    With regard to providing permanent buildings for the census, that is a very much larger question, and it is one on which I do not think the hon. Member will find I am at all averse to placing myself in line with him. That, however, is a question which we need not discuss at any length to-day, for the hon. Member has found an answer to it himself on the present occasion, for he has stated
    218
    that we are spending too much money already. In the near future I should be glad to see some permanent buildings provided for the census.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me a question with regard to the adaptation of Hertford House for the Wallace collection. This expenditure was incurred in order to hasten on the work, and I could not possibly have foreseen this in the the preparation of the Estimate. Neither my Department nor myself are responsible for the administration of Hertford House, for we have only to deal with the structural alterations of the building. The extra work at Hertford House was asked for by the trustees who administer that building in so excellent a manner, but they are not under my jurisdiction. A request was made for this further work to be proceeded with at once in order that no delay might take place, and that the public should have the earliest opportunity of visiting the collection. The hon. Member for North Wexford complained that none of these pictures had been sent to Ireland, but perhaps he will remember that the bequest provides that the collection must be kept in London, and therefore it is not within the power of the Government to accede to the hon. Member's request.
    Some remarks have been made in regard to the necessity of a Patent Office Library, and it is said that that charge might have been anticipated. I made an answer to that point last night. The additional sum spent to complete the buildings was incurred because we were specially desirous of hastening on this work in order to save, as far as possible, the £700 a year which is the rent being-paid for a temporary home for the library while these alterations were going on. By this expenditure of £3,000 we shall be able to make the library complete, and transfer the books from the temporary home, thus relieving the country of an expenditure of some £700 a year for three years. Therefore I think it was well worth while incurring this expenditure to hurry the adaptation of the building, in order to avoid the necessity of taking on another lease for three years of this temporary home at a rental of £700 per annum.
    With regard to the alterations and arrangements at Cleveland House, I

    219
    think the hon. Member expressed himself satisfied with the explanation I have already given. This expenditure was necessary in consequence of the increase of the War Office staff, and this could not possibly have been foreseen in December, when the Estimates were prepared. The same argument will also apply to the introduction and the extension of the electric light at Cleveland House.
    MR. FIELDasked if the First Commissioner of Works would give them an explanation of the "Imperial Institute, London University," item. He thought that required some explanation.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The reason for this excess on the Imperial Institute has really been given by my hon. friend below me. It is really impossible in the transfer of a great institution like the London University into fresh quarters to foresee what would be required by that institution. The chief items of expenditure have been for certain structural alterations with regard to a new entrance and providing other rooms that had to be found in substitution for the rooms which were taken over by the London University. In addition there has been some unforeseen expenditure with regard to the library, and I think the Committee will agree with me that in moving a very large library like this it is almost impossible to forecast what the cost will be. I am bound to say that a large amount of this expenditure has taken place in regard to the sanitary arrangements of the new home of the London University. I agree with him that not nearly enough sanitary requirements have been provided for; and the question of the health of those who use the building is a subject which will probably be discussed when we come to the Estimates on a future occasion. But in regard to the charge that there has been any want of foresight in the planning of the additions to these buildings, I may say that they were not designed by the Government expert, but by the very distinguished and worthy architect of the original Imperial Institute, Mr. Collcutt. It is not so easy for the Department to make any accurate estimate when they do not carry out the work themselves. Some of the require-
    220
    ments of the London University were not known to us until late last year. I do not blame the University officials, because until they were able to overhaul their books, maps, etc., they were not in a position to estimate exactly the expenditure of reinstating them. I think I have met, so far as I can, the inquiries that have been made in regard to this particular Vote.
    *MR. TENNANTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned, although careful attention had been given to his remarks, anything in regard to the condition of the Census buildings. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the House had demanded that certain alterations should be made in the form of the Census Returns, and that, therefore, additional clerks would lie required. They must all rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make it a rule that the clerks would work-under more sanitary conditions than at the last census. He wished that the First Commissioner of Works would give the Committee some information as to the particular alterations he intended to make.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that this was a Building Vote, and he did not think that the work done by the clerks of the Registrar General could be discussed under it.
    *MR. TENNANTsaid hon. Members were entitled to inquire whether additional rooms were, required for the lady clerks, or whether additional rooms and clerks were required at all. That was his first point; but his next was that it seemed to him rather peculiar that under subhead F there should be an increase of £1.200 for the supply of water. Surely that was a matter that obviously ought to have been foreseen by any Government Department.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that the additional expenditure was due to new boilers for the engines which forced the supply of water, and not for the supply of water in the ordinary course.
    *MR. TENNANT: What about the clerks?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I will find out, but that does not come within my Department.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid this Vote of £35,200 seemed a very large sum, and the different heads under which it was set out showed certainly a very extraordinary want of foresight on the part of the officials, whoever they were, who had made out the original Estimate. For New Works. Alterations, and Additions, the sum of £21,000 was the extra amount required. Of course, it might be necessary for architects to make variations on their plans from time to time, but it was an extraordinary thing that such a very large sum had not been contemplated in the original Estimate. It was most unfortunate if the Government desired to get the Votes through that they did not give any particulars whatever to the Committee. He quite appreciated the kindly and civil manner in which the right hon. the First Commissioner of Works had sought to meet every point raised, although he must say the right hon. Gentleman seemed rather disposed to ignore questions from the Irish benches, and to give a preference to complaints made above the gangway. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be convinced in time that they on the Irish benches made their complaints bona fide, because he must know that every portion of the country was drawn upon to supply the money which was now being asked for, and that, therefore, the Irish representatives were as greatly interested in money matters as those from the other parts of the United Kingdom. It should not be forgotten that one-eleventh of the whole contributions to the Exchequer came from Ireland, and they had to complain that no sufficient ground whatever had been shown for the huge increase in expenditure, particularly at a time when they were every day adding to the enormous debt of the British Empire. Of course, under this Vote he was not allowed to refer to the increase of debt due to the war in South Africa, which was being piled up at the rate of two millions a week, but he would point out that the cost of home administration was also increasing to an alarming extent, and it was time that full details should be given before
    222
    they allowed the Votes to pass through Committee. There was one particular in the Vote with which Irishmen had very grave cause of complaint. They were handing over the Imperial Institute to the London University, and were spending £9,960 for the purpose of converting it to university uses. There was not a single Vote which ought to be more objectionable to Irishmen than that one. The vast majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics, and had asked over and over again that provision might be made for the establishment of a Catholic University in Ireland. Not only had their appeals fallen on deaf ears, but they had been met with contempt and scorn. Here was a large public building in London which, he understood, had been erected, not by voluntary or public contribution, or by the taxpayers of Great Britain, but by the free gift of the people of India to commemorate the Queens Jubilee in 1887. This large building was to be handed to the London University, and the taxpayers of Ireland were not only to be deprived of the Catholic University in Ireland, but to be called upon at the same time to pay their due proportion of the fitting up of the building for London University purposes. That was another illustration of the manner in which Irish claims were dealt with, and if on no other ground, he would resist the Vote. Ho trusted his friends on the Irish benches would seek to drive this point home more forcibly, for it was really a scandal that a Catholic University was not given to them in Ireland.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing a subject that he himself has admitted is out of order.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid there were other items on this Vote on which he wished for some information. £2,000 was asked on account of alterations to adapt Winchester House for the Intelligence Branch. He wanted to know what the intelligence was about. Was it in connection with the war in South Africa, or for what other purpose? On the whole, ho must say the Government had drawn very largely on the credulity of Irish Members in asking them to agree to a Vote of £35,200

    223
    without giving them any details. There was a sum of £3,125 for the adaptation of Hertford House for the Wallace Collection. Not a solitary picture frame from that collection was to come to Ireland. He wondered if hon. Members knew that a very large portion of the estate of the late Sir Richard Wallace was situated in the north of Ireland. There was no doubt that some of the art treasures accumulated by Sir Richard Wallace had been purchased by the money which he derived from his estates in Ireland. Of course they had no right to insist on the Government breaking the terms of the bequest. He knew himself there were always plenty of legal difficulties to be raised about the simplest questions, but, at the same time, when they were asked to vote these large sums of money without any details, it was only fair that proper opportunities should be given them to call attention to the differential treatment, if he might so term it which was accorded to London and to Ireland. Some of the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman were, in his opinion, most unsatisfactory; and on three several items which he had endeavoured to explain he had to admit that the headings and details were misleading. He complained that although the sum asked for showed an increase of nearly fifty per cent, in one of the items, on the original Estimate, the details and particulars given were of a very meagre character, and the accounts as presented to the Committee were not satisfactory, at all events so far as he was concerned. One to which he took particular exception was the item dealing with the alterations at Winchester House, in order to adapt it for the occupation of the Intelligence Branch. If it was intended to make this a sort of appanage of the War Office Department, he thought the Committee would be wrong to pass it, for of all things, that the War Office had hopelessly broken down was most patent to the country, lie moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,200, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Farrell.)
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDONasked for information with
    224
    regard to the nature of the alterations said to be required in Winchester House. According to his experience of the public service, it was a common trick of new officials to find fault with their room, to say, for example, that it was too small, and to ask the Office of Works to knock-two or three rooms into one. Then, after a time, another new official would come in and say the room was too large, and ask the Office of Works to put up the party walls again, and incur the whole expense of restoring the place to the same condition as before. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would show a stiff front to all such demands.
    MR. BOLANDsupported the reduction, as in his opinion it was only proper when the Government brought forward a Supplementary Estimate of this kind they should give full particulars of how the money was to be expended. It had been said it was impossible to put down a complete Estimate in this ease, because it was drawn up originally in 1899; but if that were so, it was all the more important that complete details should be given now, as only those who had the opportunity of hearing the explanations were in a position to form a judgment. He thought it would be greatly to the advantage of Members of the Committee if full details were given of these Estimates.
    MR. O'DOHERTYconsidered the explanation given, by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was one that could not be accepted by the Irish Members. Upon one item—"fuel, light, and household articles"—he would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the merits of compressed peat. That was a matter worth considering at a time when coal-owners were putting up the prices, and did not allow the workmen to participate in rooking the public. The right hon. Gentleman might try the use of peat as an experiment, at all events, and he would find that he would not only save the public funds, but would be the means of developing a very large industry in Ireland. With regard to the amount required for the erection of a new-die and medal department at the Royal

    225
    Mint, he would suggest, if it was intended to build a now department for the striking of medals for those who had taken part in the war, that there should also be a tannery attached to it, as most of the officers at the war and the whole of
    the War Office officials required, not gold, nor silver, but leathern medals.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 27.)

    AYES.

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

    Ferguson, B. C. Munro (Leith)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Ffrench. Peter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Field, William

    O'Doherty, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Flynn, James Christopher

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

    Atherley Jones, L.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Blake, Edward

    Furness, Sir Christopher

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

    Boland, John

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, X.

    Boyle, James

    Goddard, Daniel Foul

    O'Malley, William

    Brand, Hon. Arthur

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Mara, James

    Brigg, John

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hammond, John

    Perks. Robert William

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harmsworth, B. Leicester

    Price, Robert John

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Rea,.Russell

    Caldwell, James

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Sir Chas. Seale-

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Cameron, Robert

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Beddy, M.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Carew, James Laurence

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Roche, John

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Jordon, Jeremiah

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Joyce, Michael

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sinclair, Capt. J.(Forfarshire)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Colville, John

    Leng, Sir John

    Spencer,Rt Hn CR (Northants)

    Condon. Thomas Joseph

    Levy, Maurice

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Lough, Thomas

    Sullivan, Donal

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Crombie, John William

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

    Cullinan, J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Daly, James

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Tully, Jasper

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Wallace, Robert

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Fadden, Edward.

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    M'Govern, T.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Delany, William

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

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

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Dillon, John

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Mooney, John J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Dutty, William J.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dunn, Sir William

    Murphy, J.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Edwards, Frank

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wodehouse, Hn Armine(Essex

    Elibank, Master of

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Norman, Henry

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Farquharson. Dr. Robert

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Farrell, James Patrick

    O' Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Captain Donelan.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzBoy

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

    Agnew. Sir Andrew Noel

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bignold, Arthur

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Bill,. Charles

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

    Blundell, Colonel Hemy

    Arrol, Sir William

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Bond, Edward

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Banbury, Frederick Ceorge

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

    Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

    Austin, Sir John

    Bartley,. George C. T.

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

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Greene, Sir E.W. (Bury St. Ed.

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Penn, John

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hain, Edward

    Percy, Earl

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Caine, William Sproston

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

    Powell, Sir Francis

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Purvis, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pym, C. Guv

    'Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Heath, James(Staftbrds., N. W.

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

    Henderson, Alexander

    Rasche, Major Frederic Came

    Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

    Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

    Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff)

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

    Hope, J. F. (S'hef'ld. Brightside

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Howard, Cap. J (Kent, Faversh.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Coddington, Sir William

    Howard,J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Renwick, George

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Ridley. S. F. (Bethnal Green)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Knowles, Lees

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawrence, William F.

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Cook, Frederick Lucas

    Lawson. John Grant

    Round, James

    Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

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

    Royds. Clement Molyneux

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lee, Cap. A. H (Hants., Fareh'm

    Russell T. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Legge, Col. Hon. Haneage

    Rutherford, John

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Leighton, Stanley

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Saunderson. Rt. Hn. Cl. Edw. J.

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

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dickson-Povnder, Sir John P.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Shaw, Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lowther, C. Cumb., Eskdale)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Doxtord, Sir William Theodore

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

    Spear, John Ward

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Spencer, Ernest(W. Bromwich)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Eaber, George Denison

    Malcolm. Ian

    Stroyan, John

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fellowes. Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Milton, Viscount

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Montagu. G. (Huntingdon)

    Webb, Colonel William Geo.

    Flannery, Sir Fortesque

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Uni.

    Morris, Hon. Martin H. F.

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

    Garfit, William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

    Godson,Sir Augustus Fred'rick

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

    Gordou, Hn J.E.(Elgin & Nairn

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

    Yerburgb, Robert Armstrong

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath.)

    Young, Commander) Berks, E.)

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Nicholson, William Graham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. GODDARDsaid he thought they had some cause of complaint in regard to this Supplementary Estimate, inasmuch as there was a very large proportion of it which still remained absolutely without any explanation whatever. Mo doubt there were times when there were exigencies which caused the
    228
    original Estimates to be exceeded, and they must pass Supplementary Estimates to make up the required amount. The practice had been growing to make these Supplementary Estimates for large sums of money, which could not be regarded as the result of a mistake in the original Estimate. The reason for this seemed to be a little difficult to understand. It either meant that there was great in-

    229
    competency on the part of those who prepared the Estimates in submitting a smaller amount than was really required, or else it must mean that the Government were afraid to put in the original Estimate the full amount required for the various Departments, and hoped to smuggle through the extra amount in the Supplementary Estimates, which were not fully explained. That was very unsatisfactory indeed, and he thought it was the duty of the House of Commons to resist the attempts which were made to remove these Estimates from the fullest investigation. This item of £35,200 was no small amount. It was a large amount, and there was only £31,000 attempted to be explained. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had given some explanation which might justify the increased expenditure, but it did not seem that he was justified in putting it in a Supplementary Estimate. He thought that might have been brought up in a proper way. Was it right that the Committee should be asked to pass a large sum of money like this without a single word of explanation before them? In regard to the sum of £14,200 he had before asked an explanation, but the right hon. Gentleman had not vouchsafed any. He noticed that in one case £5,500 was set down for rents, insurance, and tithe rent-charges. The Government must fully know what they had to pay, and the Committee ought to have an explanation why the amount was not included in the original Estimate. He had no doubt that the extra expenditures were absolutely correct, but the Committee had no knowledge of them, and it was possible, as he showed on the previous night, even in such a homely thing as furniture, to crowd in things which wore not furniture at all, and which called forth comment from the Comptroller and Auditor General. It was part of their duty to try to prevent the forcing of Estimates through the House without getting a full and proper explanation of them. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,100, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Goddard.)
    MR. FIELDsupported the proposal to reduce the Vote. He believed the system which had now been adopted with regard to the Supplementary Estimates was altogether wrong. The Government objected to supplementary questions, but they certainly had no objection to Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had obtained an Order objecting to supplementary questions being asked on foreign affairs, but the hon. Member thought they should also have an Order in regard to Supplementary Estimates. In this Vote there was an increase of no less than one-tenth of the whole amount. The total was £350,000 and the Supplementary Estimate was £35,000. He held that, if any business man conducted his affairs in the same way that the financial affairs of this Empire were conducted, he would simply be bankrupt in a very short time. Hon. Members got the Supplementary Estimates the day before they came to be considered. That was not a businesslike way of dealing with these matters. He would support the reduction of the Vote as a protest against a system which, in his opinion, was being abused not only by this Government, but by every Government which had been in power since he came into the House.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had again and again called attention to the practice of bringing enormous Supplementary Estimates before the Committee, and more than three years ago he was assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they had seen the last of this mischievous system. He had drawn the attention of the Government not only to the inconvenience of the practice, but also to the absolute destruction of our system of national accounts which it involved. Supplementary Estimates ought to be jealously avoided when it was in any way possible. They ought to be jealously kept for occasions which, could not possibly be foreseen when the original Estimates were made. When the practice of introducing Supplementary Estimates was seen to be growing year after year, it was calculated to produce the impression that there was a sot purpose of interfering with the control of the House of Commons. He

    231
    did not know who might be responsible for this method of false finance, but it was a system of falsifying the accounts, because when the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced his Budget and told the House he required a certain amount of money for the expenditure of the year, it was an outrage that he should come afterwards and ask for five or six millions more. He earnestly hoped the Government would give serious attention to this matter, and in future years refrain from calling upon the Committee to consider as Supplementary Estimates matters which really and properly belonged to the original Estimates.
    MR. POWERsaid that year after year it had been the practice of the Government to endeavour to take these Votes from the review of the Committee. First they came for Votes on Account, and then they brought in Supplementary Estimates. If the officials of the House knew that they could get a, Supplementary Vote on this and that item they became very careless in the manner they framed their Estimates, and the Ministers in charge of the Votes, knowing that if they sat tight until twelve o'clock the discussion would close, were not nearly so careful as they used to be in regard to explanations. When the rules providing for the closure of Supply were first introduced, Mr. Courtney said that one of the certain results would be negligence on the part of Departments in making up their accounts, and, to a certain extent, negligence on the part of Ministers in charge of defending the Votes, and he predicted a large increase of Votes on Account and also of Supplementary Estimates. The same thing was predicted by the Irish Members, and events had justified the prediction.
    *SIR EDGAR VINCENTdesired to add his protest against the system of finance which led to these very large Supplementary Estimates. In looking through the details of the Vote under discussion he could not see any item which should not have been foreseen when the original Estimate was prepared, or which could not have been postponed until the Estimates of the current year; and those were the only grounds upon which the inclusion
    232
    of any item with a Supplementary Vote could be justified. Taking the figures of the last ten years, he found that the amount of Supplementary Votes on the Civil Service Estimates was decidedly upon the increase. It was not a party question, and he hoped the Government would take a firm stand in future against the system, as it was greatly in the interests of financial government that it should he done.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN)said that, with regard to the general question of Supplementary Estimates, there seemed to be an impression in various parts of the Committee that they were a convenience to the Government. That certainly was not the case.
    MR. DILLONsaid the contention was that they were a convenience to the permanent officials.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINassured the Committee that it was the desire of the Government to limit Supplementary Estimates as strictly as possible. In recent years there had been, as the hon. Member for Exeter had pointed out. a tendency to increase the Supplementary Estimates, but it would he his duty, and it was the desire of the Government, to limit them as strictly as they could in future. The circumstances under which the Estimates were framed were well known to right hon. Gentlemen opposite; they were drawn up a long while beforehand, and it was impossible in all cases to foresee all the expenditure. With regard to the remark of the hon. Member for East Mayo, that the permanent officials preferred Supplementary Estimates to the ordinary Estimates of the year, he thought there was no foundation for such a suggestion. Many of the Votes under discussion were Votes which could not possibly have been introduced at an earlier time. In the circumstances of the present year there had been peculiar conditions, which had upset calculations made with as great an approach to accuracy as was possible at the time the original Estimates were framed. The Committee doubtless would recognise the exceptional circum-

    233
    stances of the year, and understand that the fact of there being so large a sum to be obtained by Supplementary Estimates was not an indication of any desire or intention on the part of the Government to increase Supplementary Estimates unnecessarily.
    MR. LABOUCHEREthought the Amendment was moved as a general protest against the growing system of Supplementary Estimates. The objection was not to those matters which could not have been foreseen; there were no doubt such cases, but when the Supplementary Estimates kept increasing it was necessary to oppose every item that could not be shown to have been necessarily put in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. That was the only way in which the matter could be dealt with in a practical manner. The Financial Secretary had said that special care would be exercised in the future. Promises for "the future" were always being given. "The present" was now being dealt with, and if the Supplementary Estimates were reduced in the future it would be mainly due to the fact that they were opposed now. The real reason they had increased was that the Opposition had been very remiss in its duty. During the last Parliament Supplementary Estimates went up by leaps and bounds, because, instead of there being any real discussion upon them, the Opposition sat cowed and did not dare to do anything. They were going to adopt quite a different system in the present Parliament; they were going to fight the Government upon everything, because, although they were in a numerical minority at present, they represented the feelings of the country upon many questions in regard to finance, and they intended henceforth to do their duty. As no attempt at a case had been made for many of the present Supplementary Estimates, it was a very good opportunity to give the Government a hint of their intentions, which they were determined to carry out without fear of being accused of obstruction or anything of that sort.
    MR. DILLONwas glad that the Financial Secretary had admitted the
    234
    justice of the complaint against these Supplementary Estimates, and promised that the Government would amend its ways in the years to come. But that promise had been given every year for the last seven or eight years, and instead of there being any sign of improvement things had got worse. The great increase in Supplementary Estimates, which was a sign of recklessness, carelessness, and indifference in dealing with public accounts, was but a symptom of a disease which was playing havoc with the public economy that the House of Commons was supposed to enforce. The reason these constant increases were brought forward was that the opinion had been growing on the permanent officials that the day had gone by when the Committee would find fault with any Estimate that was submitted. The recent statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, that it was the accepted practice of the House of Commons not to discuss any Estimate with a view to economy, was a direct invitation to every official to be indifferent in his accounts, and to have no fear of the House of Commons before his eyes, knowing perfectly well that if he made up a wrong Estimate he could put forward a Supplementary Estimate. The system betokened a fatal disease which was preying upon the whole of the spending departments of the country, and which would sooner or later cause an outbreak on the part of that most patient of all beings, the taxpayer of the United Kingdom. It was for these reasons the Opposition had taken up the position they had on that and the previous day, and that course of action had been amply justified. The Amendment might now very well be voted upon, in order that other important Votes could be discussed.
    MR. MARTINremarked that if Supplementary Estimates were to be done away with altogether the tendency would be for the original Estimates to be drawn up very loosely, and not at all so strictly as they should be. That was a danger which should be kept in view.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYfelt it necessary to join in the protest against the large

    235
    Supplementary Estimates the Committee were always called upon to meet at the end of the financial year, a large proportion of which might have been included in the original Estimates of the various Departments. The Minister in charge always said that it should not occur again, but year after year the same thing happened. It seemed to be entirely beyond the power of Ministers to treat those matters in a businesslike way. No private business could conduct its financial affairs in such a fashion. The continual growth of the expenditure of the country was a matter of the gravest concern. Year by year the Committee with a light heart voted largely increasing expenditure, the taxation of the country grew heavier, and millions were added to the burdens of the nation. These matters could not be attacked in the gross; they must be considered in detail with a determination to lop off everything that was unnecessary. Ministers themselves ought to be grateful for the protest which had been made, because it would strengthen their hands in battling against the leading officials of their Departments, and in keeping down the Estimates. The House of Commons was gradually losing its grip over the expenditure of the country, and how the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked forward to his annual statement he did not know. He did not believe the Treasury would take the Committee to be serious in its protests until some Vote had been refused, and he ventured to hope the division would be successful in bringing the matter home to them.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid there was no doubt the system of Supplementary Estimates was a very inconvenient one, and it was almost impossible for the House of Commons to keep a proper check on the expenditure of the country so long as the Committee were subject, after the Estimates had been more or less discussed, to demands for further large sums in the shape of Supplementary Estimates. At the same time, they could not do without Supplementary Estimates for unforeseen expenses. But a Public Accounts Committee sat during the session, and he would like to suggest that no Supplementary Estimate should be presented
    236
    to the House until it had been before that Committee. If that Committee investigated the figures, and satisfied themselves that the amounts asked for were such as should properly be embodied in Supplementary Estimates, the House might proceed to vote on such matters with much more confidence than at present.
    *MR. JOHN ELLISthought it would be very unfortunate if this important matter was regarded from a party point of view. The suggestion of the hon. Member for the Horsham Division would not bear much examination from the constitutional standpoint. The Government must be held responsible for the proposals it placed before the House of Commons, and he should not be at all in favour of delegating that responsibility to any Committee.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEexplained that he did not for a moment suggest that the House should accept the Estimates as sent down from the Public Accounts Committee, but simply that it would save a great deal of time if it was known that they had been thoroughly examined upstairs.
    *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that would not at all do away with the constitutional objection. The Government must be held responsible from beginning to end for the demands they put before the House, and the burdens they placed upon the taxpayers. The hon. Member would see upon consideration that his suggestion would be fatal to all fixing of responsibility. These Supplementary Estimates were against all financial security, but the practice of presenting them was undoubtedly growing. He welcomed the assurance of the Financial Secretary, but the hon. Member had not a long period of official experience behind him, and his assurance must therefore be taken for what it was worth. The spirit shown on that and the previous evening with regard to the Estimates had been too long absent from the debates, and he welcomed its return. Finance would dominate this session and this Parliament. For long, as was well known to anyone of Parliamentary experience, Ministers of the highest con-

    237
    stitutional and financial reputations had uttered their protest against the methods involved in large Supplementary Estimates.

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    O'Doherty, William

    Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Field, William

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

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Dowd, John

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Kerry, Jas. (Roscommon, N

    Boland, John

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    O'Malley, William

    Boyle, James

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Mara, James

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brigg, John

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Perks, Robert William

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hammond, John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Harms worth, R. Leicester

    Price, Robert John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Rea, Russell

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Caine, William Sproston

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir A. D.

    Reddy, M.

    Caldwell, James

    Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cameron, Robert

    Hope, John D. (Fife, West)

    Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Roche, John

    Carew, James Laurence

    Joyce, Michael

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Lahouchere, Henry

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Leng, Sir John

    Soares, Ernest J,

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Levy, Maurice

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants

    Colville, John

    Lough, Thomas

    Stevenson, Francis S,

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    MacDonnell, Dr Mark A.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Crean, Eugene

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thomas Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

    Crombie, John William

    M'Arthur, William(Cornwall)

    Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Daly, James

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Tully, Jasper

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Govern, T.

    Ure, Alexander

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Wallace, Robert

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

    Delany, William

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dillon, John

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mooney, John J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Murphy, J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Edwards, Frank

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

    Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

    Elibank, Master of

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

    Ellis, John Edward

    Norman, Henry

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    Emmott, Alfred

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Evans, Samuel T.

    O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Farrell, James Patrick

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W)

    Mr. Goddard and Sir Brampton Gurdon.

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Bignold, Arthur

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bill, Charles

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

    Bond, Edward

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Arrol, Sir William

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Austin, Sir John

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

    Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline EitzRoy

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, Noes, 211. (Division List No. 28.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hain, Edward

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Purvis, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

    Quilrer, Sir Cuthbert

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

    Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N.W.)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

    Henderson, Alexander

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

    Renwick, George

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Howard, Capt J. (Kent, Faversh

    Ridley, Hn. M.W(Stalyhridge)

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

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Coddington, Sir William

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Ritchie, Rt Hn Chas. Thompson

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Knowles, Lees

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawson, John Grant

    Round, James

    Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

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

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

    Lee, Capt. AH (Hants. Fareham

    Russell, T. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rutherford, John

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Leighton, Stanley

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cust, Henry C.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Dewar, T.R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

    Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Smith, H. C. (North'mb., Tynes.

    Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfield

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Spear, John Ward

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Macdona, John dimming

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk.)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Egerton. Hon. A. de Tatton

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

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

    Elliot, Hon. Ralph Douglas

    M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire

    Stroyan, John

    Faber, George Denison

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Valencia, Viscount

    Finch, George H.

    Milton, Viscount

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Webb, Col. William George

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthatnstow)

    Williams, Colonel R (Dorset)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Garfit, William

    Mowbray, Sir Robert (tray C.

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

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

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk,

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Goschen, Hon. Ceo. Joachim

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Penn, John

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Percy, Earl

    2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Rates and Contributions in
    240
    lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government property."
    MR. CALDWELLsaid this was one of the opportunities the Government would have of defending the principle on which the Supplementary Estimates had been made out. He wished to know why they had lumped

    241
    the amount for England and Ireland' together, instead of dividing them into different heads, and why there had been no explanation given as to how much was for England and how much for Ireland. Could it be said for a moment that the money required for the rates on these properties could not have been foreseen? These properties did not come into existence yesterday or since the Estimates were made out. These buildings in London were in existence and occupation, and they could easily have taken into account in the original Estimate the amount that would be required to be paid. He noticed that they had inserted a foot-note which stated—
    "This additional sum is required to meet an increase in the poundage of rates in London and in many country districts; also in Ireland."
    That argument might apply in the case of an individual, but in London the rates were under their own control and they were not like those levied by local authorities. The Government had their own valuers, and there could be no difficulty whatever in estimating the amount of those rates beforehand, lie washed to know how it was that these rates had been increased? Why was it that they had increased rates in respect to England and Ireland and yet they had no increase whatever as far as Scotland was concerned? In the ease of England in the year 1890 the amount required for rates and contributions in lieu of rates in respect of Government property was £250,800, for Scotland the amount was £20,500, and for Ireland £41,000. Five years later, when they came to last year's Estimates, they found that the rates in England amounted to £385,000, and this was a Supplementary Estimate in addition which would bring the sum total up to nearly £400,000 instead of the £250.800 at which it stood five years ago. That was an enormous increase. How did the matter stand with regard to Ireland? In the year 1890, in Ireland the amount for rates and contributions in lieu of rates in respect of Government property was £41,000. and last year there was a slight increase, the amount being £42,000 instead of £41,000, but that was owing to the operation of the
    242
    Local Government Act. Practically speaking, so far as Ireland was concerned, for the last five years there had not been the slightest increase. As far as Scotland was concerned, if they would look at the Appropriation Accounts they would find that Scotland only got £17,000, and under these accounts if there was a saving in one country it went to the other country, and England had been getting the benefit of what Scotland had saved. They ought to have a uniform principle of valuation for England, Scotland, and Ireland.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into the general question and he must be aware that that is not in order. He must confine himself to the subject-matter of the Estimate before the Committee.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid he was complaining, as he was quite entitled to complain, that the Government were coming to the House with Supplementary Estimates for England, whilst they had not found it necessary to make Supplementary Estimates for the other country.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the point with which the hon. Member was dealing when I ruled him out of order. He was then going in to the general question.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that as regarded these rates they ought to have an account of the amount of valuation and the taxes of the Government property throughout England, giving the details. That would facilitate them very considerably in getting at the proportion.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: As I have already pointed out to the hon. Member, this is a point with which he cannot deal. He is now discussing the general principle, and that cannot be discussed upon a Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member must confine himself to this Estimate.
    MR. CALDWELLcontended that they were entitled to know how much of this

    243
    increased expenditure was due to increased poundage of rates, and the conditions under which this increase had been rendered necessary, and he would leave the matter in that form.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is one of those items which is not open to the criticism of which we have heard a good deal in the earlier part of the debate to-day and yesterday, to the effect that this increase could have been foreseen and ought to have been foreseen. The whole of this Supplementary Estimate is required to meet the increased poundage in the rates. The sum which the Government take is sufficient to pay the rates and the contributions in lieu of rates on all Government property, and it is also sufficient provision for the new Government property which we came into possession of in the course of the year. This provision is wholly and exclusively taken to cover the increased poundage of rates over which we have no control, and which rests entirely with the local authority. I think the lion. Member for Mid Lanark must know that we have no control in that sense over the exact amount of the rates. I think it is now agreed that the valuation of Government property made by the Government valuer has given universal satisfaction. That valuation has been accepted in Scotland and placed on the valuation rolls. They have been accepted equally in Ireland as fair and reasonable, and they have met with the same approval of the local authorities. Once those valuations are fixed we pay-as a contribution the amount which would be levied if the property was not Crown property. The whole of this amount is due to the increase of the poundage of the rates over which the Government have no control, and in order to carry out the bargain made at the request of lion. Members of this House with the local authorities, we are obliged to ask the Committee to make provision for this increased sum. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark inquires why this sum was necessary for England and Ireland and not for Scotland? That must be duo to the fact that the local authorities in Scotland
    244
    are very reluctant to raise the poundage of the rates.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid the Secretary to the Treasury was mistaken in saying that they were satisfied with the present valuation of Government property in Ireland, for the general complaint was that it was not valued sufficiently high. He was sorry that, according to the Chairman's ruling, it was not proper for them to discuss the principle on which the assessments of Government properties were made. He thought that on a matter of this great importance they ought to have some representative of the Irish Administration to give them the details of this extra sum of £3,000 which was required from Ireland. They were asked to vote this £3,000 as a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the rating of Government property in Ireland, and no information was given to them as to the way in which this £3,000 was to be expended. Ho presumed that the Secretary to the Treasury was not in a position to give the Committee this information, but he hoped that before this debate came to an end he would be able to give the Committee the details.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that, in regard to the rates and contributions in lieu of rates in respect of Government property, he wished to say that the Returns he had moved for and obtained wore sent to all the boroughs in England, and he believed in Ireland as well, and no complaint had been made at all in regard to the assessments agreed upon. In his opinion a very great wrong had been redressed by this arrangement, though the principle of the Government being its own valuer was, of course, still open to objection.
    MR. DALYsaid that the statement of the right lion. Gentleman was very loose in regard to a matter of this kind. He believed, however, the discussion that night would be of very great benefit to the hon. Gentleman, because, although he was new to his office, he must understand, if he wanted to get his Votes through Committee, he must have all the details at his fingers ends. He would feel it his duty

    245
    to move a reduction of the Vote unless a better explanation was given.
    MR. CALDWELLthought that the explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury would not hold water for a moment. Here was an increase of £2,000 in the rates and contributions in lieu of rates for Admiralty property, and of £7,000 for property of the War Department. But look at the enormous buildings of the Government—dockyards, post offices, etc.—throughout the whole of England and Ireland, and how could it be that this sum of £13,000 was simply owing to increased poundage? It was nothing of the kind. If the hon. Gentleman thought that there was not to be an increased poundage in Scotland he was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Scotch people were satisfied, but he could assure him that the people in that country had been complaining very much. He quite recognised that on a Supplementary Vote they could not go into the principle of a uniform system of contribution; but at the same time he was entitled to call attention to the fact that if Scotland could do without an increased contribution to the rates, so should England.
    MR. DILLONsaid that the hon. Gentleman had declared that they in Ireland were satisfied with the Government contribution to the rates. He was astonished at that in view of what had appeared in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which had just been published. In that Report there was a most important memorandum prepared for the Commission by Mr. Charles Dawson, Collector General of Rates in Dublin, who said—
    "Government property should be openly valued, and pay rates, not as bounty, but as duty. If it be right, as the giving of a 'bounty' allows, to pay at all, it should be done as a matter of right. The valuation of this kind of property in Dublin is quite inadequate. The Castle of Dublin, with the town palace of the Viceroy, and all its Government offices, residences, private chapels, courtyards and squares, is only valued at £3,550. All the Government buildings in Dublin, including Castle, Law Courts, Custom House, Post Office, Barracks, are only valued at £36,764. In London the Law Courts alone are valued at £56,700."
    Anyone who compared the Castle, Viceroy's palace, barracks, law courts,
    246
    custom house, post office, and other public buildings in Dublin with those in London would acknowledge that if the same principle of valuation were applied in Dublin as in London, the valuation of the former would be at least £120,000 instead of £36,700. He supposed an opportunity would arise of discussing ere long the Report of the Commission which had been hatching its eggs for the last six or seven years.
    *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he quite understood the difficulty of making up the amount of poundage eighteen months beforehand, but he could hardly understand why an additional £10,000 was required for England, and only £3,000 for Ireland, and nothing for Scotland. Some further explanation was surely required.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in making the original Estimates for the year allowance was made for any increase in the buildings, for the occupation of additional property, and also for increased valuation that was thought likely to arise on existing property. But a sufficient sum had not been allowed for a rise in the poundage rates, which of course affected the contributions the Government made. Hon Members would see that the increases were not likely to be the same, but would differ with each rating authority. He understood that, on the whole, the valuations had given satisfaction. He believed the Dublin valuation was an old one, but a proposal had been made for a new one.
    *MR. O'DOHERTYsaid that the Government property in Ireland, and he took it that it was the same in England, was valued not as the property of private individuals at its net annual value, but at half the net annual rent. They had, in the city of Londonderry, protested against that system over and over again. He wished for some explanation of why the allowance for rates on Government property had been increased in Ireland since local government had been instituted there. Such was not his experience, and he felt that this Vote was a libel upon the County Borough Councils and County Councils in Ireland. Why had this slur been placed on the local bodies in Ireland by the Government?
    MR. TULLYsaid he wanted some further explanation in regard to the increase of £7,000 as a contribution in lieu of rates on War Department property in England. Then an increase of £3,000 was asked for Ireland; but there had been no general increase of rates in Ireland to justify their asking for such a large sum. On the contrary, since the new rating bodies had been elected by the people there had been all round a reduction of rates, He thought Dublin had been treated in a very unfair manner in regard to the rating of Government buildings. In London a grant of £10,000 was given to the fire brigade in lieu of a contribution to the rates, but no grant was given to the fire brigade in Dublin.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that the hon. Gentleman had declared that the increase was due to the increase of poundage, but it was obvious that that was not the case, because, had it been due to increase of poundage, it would have applied equally all over the country. It was absurd to come forward in Committee and make a general assertion without giving them any particulars whatsoever.
    MR. FIELDsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the people in Ireland were satisfied with the valuation of the public buildings there. He was not satisfied [laughter]; and all the people he had consulted declared that all the Government buildings in Ireland were entirely underrated. The valuation in England was made by the local authorities, whereas in Ireland it was fixed by Government officials.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid that that was a Question of principle, which did not arise on the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. FIELDsaid that hon. Gentlemen who laughed at a subject like taxation would be a good deal more serious if the money came out of their own pockets. This was a serious matter, and, as a protest against the absence of details in respect, to the amount of the grant allocated to Ireland, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman move in respect to the £3,000 for Ireland?
    MR. FIELD: Yes, Sir.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,900, be granted for the said Service."— (Mr. Field.)
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman wants to reduce the amount available for distribution in Ireland in lieu of rates, the Government, I am sure, have no objection, and I accept the Amendment.
    MR. FIELDsaid the hon. Gentleman had put the matter in the wrong way. It would be perfectly obvious to anyone with a knowledge of figures that it was to the total Vote his Amendment applied.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I asked him did he intend his Amendment to apply to the amount for Ireland, and be said, "Yes."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I would point out to hon. Members that this Vote is not proposed for the advantage of the Treasury. The Treasury would be glad if none of this money went to the ratepayers either in England or Ireland; and it comes to this, that if hon. Members do not desire the Vote we will withdraw it.
    *SIR WALTER FOSTERthought the Committee were unanimous in their desire to pass the Vote, At the same time it was hoped that some further information would be given upon the subject.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    3. £7,000 (Supplementary), Railways, Ireland.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that this Vote, upon the face of it, was a brilliant example of the Supplementary Estimate, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to withdraw the

    249
    whole of this Vote, as he had professed himself willing to do with the Vote last before the Committee, a very good case might be made out for his so doing. Although it might be perfectly right to bring it in as an ordinary, there was no doubt it was wrong to bring this in as a Supplementary Estimate. It appeared to be an "amount required to meet the additional claims which, in consequence of the earlier discharge under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, of the local liability to the several railway-companies, will mature in the year." This was a liability which arose under an Act which received the Royal Assent on the 12th of August. 1898. The original Estimates were prepared in November, 1899—fifteen months after the Act was passed—when every liability which was likely to arise out of the Act was perfectly well forseeable. Why was it not foreseen? How was it that in November, 1899, the Government were unable to foresee a liability which was likely to arise out of an Act passed fifteen months previously? This system of Supplementary Estimates undoubtedly put the finances of the country upon a false basis.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was, of course, foreseen that these sums would have to be paid. They were, as a matter of fact, repayments in respect of a guarantee given by the Government to the Local Government of Ireland. Under the new Local Government Act the county councils of Ireland had accelerated the work, and as soon as the payments had been made and vouched the Government were obliged to repay them.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that his question had not been answered.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, assuming the hon. Member for King's Lynn was right in the opinion he had formed, he did not think his remedy was equally so. If the hon. Gentleman disagreed with the Vote, he should move to reduce the salaries of some of his hon. friends on the Government bench, and not punish the unfortunate people of Ireland by proposing the withdrawal of the Vote.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he proposed to punish nobody. All he asked was, why was not this expenditure foreseen and provided for in the ordinary Estimates?
    COLONEL NOLANexplained that the county councils of Ireland had made these payments, and unless this Vote was agreed to they would be out of pocket £1,500 for three months. It was not a very large sum, and he hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would raise no objection.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINadmitted that the Government expected some acceleration in the matter of these payments, but it could not be provided for until it was known in which cases it was likely to occur payment had not in all cases been accelerated, and it would not be fair to take the whole amount when the whole of the amounts had not become due.
    *MR. TULLYwas of opinion that some further details ought to be given for the particular sum of £7,000 which was now exercising the attention of the Committee. There was a guarantee given for the railway in Leitrim. He asked how much was included for it.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: £1,700 in respect to that guarantee is included in this sum.
    *MR. TULLYpointed out that under the Local Government Act, when the light railway rate exceeded sixpence the Government was to pay half, but what happened in Leitrim was that, instead of the ratepayers saving something, they suffered under a heavier tax last year, as this money was not put to the credit of the county in due time. So far as Leitrim was concerned, the Estimate was not justified, because in the first instance they had not received the amount to which they were entitled. He had no faith in the figures of Supplementary Estimates. There was, he thought, always something behind them which would not bear investigation.
    *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the Vote was to give back from Government what the county councils had already advanced.

    CLASS II.
    4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    MR. DILLONsaid he should oppose the Vote on the two grounds that the information sent by His Majesty's Minister at Peking as to affairs in China was insufficient and misleading, and always behind date, and that the Estimate was prepared in such a way as was calculated to confuse the hon. Members of the House. He himself was able to show on one occasion that the correspondent of The Times at Peking was a week ahead with information. When His Majesty's Government were questioned as to information that had appeared in The Times, the House was told that they knew nothing about it; and then, perhaps a week afterwards, they were told that the information of the correspondent of The Times was perfectly correct. With regard to the Estimates, could anything be more objectionable than the way in which they were drawn up? This was a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1901, to pay salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the amount now asked for was for telegrams "consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East." If the Committee turned to page 20, they would find a Supplementary Estimate for the Diplomatic and Consular Services, under which there were these items. "E. Telegrams consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East"; "U. Telegrams consequent on the state of affairs at Lorenzo Marques"; and "E.E. Postage and telegrams consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East." Therefore it would be seen that there were no less than three separate and distinct claims all based upon the state of affairs in the Far East, and all for telegrams in consequence of the state of affairs in the Far East. This he thought was satisfactory. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £3,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,)said that the Supplementary Estimates were prepared on the same plan as the main Estimates, and that plan was of long standing. He thought that nothing would be more calculated to confuse hon. Members than that Supplementary Estimates should be drawn on a different basis to that on which the main Estimates were drawn. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member, he had nothing to say except to express his admiration for the energy and enterprise of The Times. Although, of course, the Government had to be a little more careful, it was always the object of the Secretary of State to lay before the House as much information as possible.
    MR. LABOUCHEREthought that the House did not get the full value of the information which came to Ministers. When any specific information was asked for, not only did the Government deny any knowledge, but they did not attempt to telegraph out in order to allay the grave anxiety felt in the country. His reason for objecting to this Vote was in order to make some alteration in the preparation of the Estimates. He was perfectly aware that this amount had only reference to telegrams sent, but everybody did not know that, and anybody outside the Foreign Office reading the Estimate would be under the impression that this was for telegrams sent and received. He therefore supported the reduction.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid the noble Lord's remarks were not an answer to the observations of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The original Estimate for Foreign Office telegrams was£14,000, and they were now asked for an addition of £6,000. If the book-keeping arrangements in connection with these matters were as perfect as they ought to be, it that the original Estimate was not more accurately made out? Complaints had been made in the discus-

    253
    sion of the other Votes of the high percentage of the increases in the original Estimates shown by the Supplementary Estimates. In this case the increase was over 30 per cent., and no explanation had been vouchsafed of the cause, except what had been stated by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He had no knowledge of the causes which led to this telegraphing, or whether it was necessary or not. He would like to hear about the contracts for this telegraphing. He understood that there were two or three lines over which cablegrams could be sent, and it was certainly a question on which they should receive some information. With whom were the contracts entered into, and what was the rate per word? The hon. Member for Northampton had referred to the fact that information had been withheld from the House, although information had been long previously supplied in the public newspapers. It appeared to him singular that any newspaper—no matter how great or how large its available
    capital—could be supplied with reliable information before the Government of the country. He should say that the Government of the country, which was responsible for the maintenance of the Empire, should be supplied not only with perfectly accurate but absolutely first-hand information. He imagined that the The Times should look to the Government rather than that the Government should look to that newspaper for information. He thought the hon. Member for East Mayo had rendered a distinct service to the cause of economy in moving for this reduction. The Irish Members had no means of checking before the event any action of the Government in connection with foreign relations, but when the bill came the Irish people were compelled to pay, although a Royal Commission had reported that they were already overtaxed.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 153. (Division List No. 29.)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Forster, Henry William

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Garfit, William

    Purvis Robert

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

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

    Pym. C. Guy

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Bigwood, James

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Bond, Edward

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Bowles Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

    Greene, Sir EW (B'ry SEdm'nds

    Renwick, George

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Grenfell, William Henry

    R'dley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge

    Brigg, John

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bull, William James

    Hain, Edward

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Lond'nd'ry

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Russell, T. W.

    Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tyuem'th

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Sadler, Co). Samuel Alex.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

    Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

    Hermon-Hodge, Hold. Trotter

    Sinclair, Lewis (Romford)

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Charrington, Spencer

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Smith, H. C (Northumb. Tynesd.

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Knowles, Lees

    Spear, John Ward

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Lawson, John Grant

    Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lee, Capt AH (Hants. Fareham)

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Colville, John

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Cook, Frederick Lucas

    Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

    Stroyan, John

    Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lonsdale, John Browlee

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lucas, Reginald (Portsmouth)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

    Wason, John Catheart (Orkney

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

    M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Webb, Colonel William Geo.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

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

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Malcoln, Ian

    Williams, Col. H. (Dorset)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Moon, Edward Rabert pacy

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

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    More, R. J. (Shropshire)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Morgan, David J.(W'lth'mst'w

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    Faber, George Denison

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Morris, Hon. Martin Hy. F.

    Young, Com'nder (Berks, E.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Finch, George H.

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    5. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £7,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
    MR. DILLONsaid that this Vote, so far as he could make out, was constructed on a different principle from the Foreign Office Vote. He took it that the additional £7,200 was for telegrams sent from and to South Africa and Ashanti. If so, that was a very much better way of keep-
    256
    ing the account than in the ease of the previous Vote. He moved the reduction of this Vote as a protest against the character of Sir Alfred Milner's telegrams, which were responsible for a considerable-waste of public money. It was nothing short of an outrage that public money should be spent on the absurd telegrams Sir Alfred Milner sent.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The substance of the telegrams cannot be discussed on this Vote.
    MR. DILLON: Am I not entitled to object if public money is wasted, as it has been in this case, on useless telegrams? If Sir Alfred Milner used the wires to telegraph absurd news or articles, I am

    257
    surely entitled to question his action on this Vote.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The proper time to discuss that would be on the salary of the Colonial Secretary. Sir Alfred Milner's telegrams cannot he discussed without entering into the policy in pursuance of which they were sent, and it has frequently been held that upon telegrams policy cannot be discussed. In saying that I am only upholding what has been the regular practice of the House.
    MR. DILLON: I am not discussing the policy at all. Am I not entitled to discuss the question how this money has been spent? Suppose that a Governor telegraphs articles which should not be telegraphed, and a Supplementary Estimate, is presented to us for telegraphing a lot of absurd stuff perfectly unsuitable for telegraphing, surely nothing could be more pertinent than to move the reduction of the Vote, inasmuch as the money has been wasted in telegraphing that which should not have been telegraphed at all.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: That involves policy —whether the telegrams should have been sent or not.
    MR. DILLON: Are we not entitled to question this Vote at all?
    *THE CHAIEMAN: It is not a new decision that I am stating. It is a very old decision—that policy cannot be discussed on a telegram.
    MR. DILLON: With the deepest respect for your ruling, I do not call it discussing policy to question whether money spent on telegrams has been properly spent. I think that is a matter totally apart from policy.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The substance of the telegrams cannot be discussed on the Vote now before the Committee.
    MR. DILLONsaid it was very difficult to understand on what ground they could question this Vote at all. If an Estimate were presented for £60,000 or for £100,000, was the House compelled to vote for it blindly and without any
    258
    reference to the discretion exercised in the spending of the money? Were they to be debarred altogether from discussing this matter? If they could not question the expenditure for these telegrams on the ground of their length or number, on what grounds wore they to question them at all? In using the wires from South Africa Sir A. Milner appeared to have no regard either for the public interest or for the urgency or necessity of the matter which he telegraphed. As a protest, he moved that the Vote be reduced by £3,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,200, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the Secretary for the Colonies would be good enough to tell them how much of this expenditure applied to Ashanti and how much to South Africa. The Vote put the two things together. He also asked what was the price per word of telegrams from Ashanti and South Africa to England, and whether the Government received any rebate from the telegraph companies.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he recognised that they could not discuss the general policy of the Government in South Africa on this Vote, but were they not entitled to ask with reference to a particular telegram from a Colonial Governor, or sent by the Colonial Office, whether it was worth the money spent upon it? They had had other Votes in which furniture was included, and they had discussed the question whether the furniture was worth the money paid for it.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid that involved a question of policy, and must be discussed on the original Estimate.
    MR. DILLONsaid he had never discussed the policy of the question, but simply whether a particular communication was of sufficient importance to warrant its being sent by telegraph.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid that that question could not be discussed without considering the action of the individual

    259
    sending the telegram, and that must come on the general Vote for the office of the one responsible for the action.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not propose to continue the discussion with the Chair. I will only say on the subject that I take full responsibility for all telegrams that have been sent, not only to, but from South Africa. If, therefore, any exception is taken to any particular telegram being sent, I shall be perfectly prepared to discuss that telegram on the proper occasion, and to go into the whole of the details, which will, of course, be on the Vote for my own salary. As regards the question asked me by the hon. Member for Northampton, that is a question which really does not concern the Colonial Office. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Colonial Office does not make a separate telegraph contract. This is generally an arrangement which is made for all offices by the Post Office. But it is the fact that the cable companies give a very large reduction to the Government. I cannot myself say what the reduction is, but I think the cost per word is little more than half the charge to the general public. As regards the question of the amount respectively for the telegrams sent to South Africa and Ashanti it is quite impossible to go into detail, nor does the present Vote, which is a purely Supplementary Vote, show what is the total amount of the telegrams sent to both places. Of course, the Vote was taken originally for the whole telegraphic service of the Colonial Office. In consequence of the state of things caused by the South African War and by the Ashanti War, the number of telegrams estimated to be sent has been very largely exceeded, and I would point out to the hon. Member that it does not mean necessarily that these telegrams were sent either to South Africa or to Ashanti. For instance, there has been an immense amount of telegraphy owing to the action of the colonies in furnishing troops for the South African War. Communications have had to go between Australia and this country, between New Zealand and this country, and between Canada and this country; and owing to
    260
    that the number of telegrams has been largely increased. The word "mainly" refers to the South African War, and it is in consequence of the South African War that we have had to send these telegrams to other colonies like Australia and Canada.
    MR. FLYNNcomplained that the Colonial Secretary had not given the slightest idea as to the relative proportions of the cost for Ashanti and South Africa respectively. The Committee were practically asked by the Government to vote these sums blindfold. The original Estimate had been increased by 75 per cent. Were the Committee to understand that the Colonial Office were not able to calculate the probable amount of telegraphing they would have to do in connection with affairs in South Africa and West Africa more accurately than that? In this Estimate, as in all others, there was the same feature of extraordinary and excessive expenditure, causing large discrepancies, which ought to have been avoided. It was not unreasonable to ask for the rate per telegram charged by the cable companies to the Government as distinguished from the general public, or how many hundreds of telegrams it would take to account for this sum of £7,200. He hoped the examination of the Vote would be persisted in until a reasonable amount of information was forthcoming.
    MR. CREANprotested against the form in which the Estimate was presented to the Committee. An excess of £7,000 over the original Estimate was simply inexplicable without any details being given as to how, exactly, the money had been spent. The House of Commons was treated with contempt, and it would be far more decent for the Government to say, "We want this money, you will have to give it, and we will give no information whatever." It was nothing but a policy of extravagance, and information was required in order that the fault might be traced to the persons responsible.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid that although there were many Irish Members who wished to discuss

    261
    this subject upon the lines which had been ruled out of order, they would gladly bow to the Chairman's ruling. If there was one thing which they had a right to do, he thought it was to discuss any Estimates which were placed before them for special purposes; and although they knew that, however long these discussions might be, they would never succeed in reducing any particular Estimate at the time, they hoped and believed that healthy criticism would do something to remind Ministers that they would have to be more careful as to how they placed such matters before the Committee. He could not understand how this Estimate came to be put on the Paper at all in its present form. Why was it not put in such a way as would enable the House of Commons to exercise its right to discuss it? It was an extraordinary fact that although the original amount was £10,000, that amount had been exceeded by £7,200. That was a remarkable piece of extravagance. By the Chairman's ruling they could not touch upon Sir Alfred Milner, and they could not get at the Minister who was responsible for his appointment, for those were some of the particular items which the Committee would not be allowed to discuss. He wished to ask the Chairman in what way they could discuss this matter? This particular item seemed to be nobody's child, and yet it had to be paid for at a very extravagant price. They were told that they could not question the money which had been spent by Sir Alfred Milner, and that meant that he could spend what he liked and nobody here could question it. They desired to be orderly, and he wished to ask the Chairman if he could suggest any way in conformity with the ruling which he had given in which they could discuss this remarkable extravagance on the part of Sir Alfred Milner.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The answer is a very simple one. Among the Estimates which will be laid upon the Table presently will be one under Class 3, Vote 6, Colonial Office Vote, and one of the items will be "telegrams." When the Vote comes before the Committee the whole question can be raised.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked, upon a point of order, if it was right for an
    262
    Estimate to be placed on the Paper in such a way that it could not be discussed, and was there any other heading under which this item should have been placed?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: It is not correct to say that it cannot be discussed. The Vote has now been discussed for over an hour. In what I have laid down I have only followed the ruling of my predecessors that, on a Supplementary Vote for telegrams, it is impossible to discuss the policy embodied in those telegrams. The substance of telegrams is not open for discussion upon an item which relates only to their cost.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    MR. DALYthought the explanation which had been given was altogether unsatisfactory. It was most extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman could not come nearer the mark in his original Estimate without having to come to the House for an additional £7,200. The Chairman had ruled that they could not discuss the words contained in the telegrams, and they had to be satisfied with the word of the right hon. Gentleman and those acting under him as to whether those telegrams were necessary or not, and also as to whether the words transmitted in them were correct or not. It was a most unfortunate thing that this Vote had been put down in such a way that it was very difficult to discuss it. The charge for telegrams was very heavy, and hon. Members around him were very anxious that full details should be given, and it would be very satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to tell them what number of words were placed in those telegrams, and at what rate they were charged for. Ireland had to contribute a large sum towards this extra £7,200. He hoped his hon. friends would press this matter to a division, and any support he could give them would be gladly given. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman and every member of the Government that in future they would find that every item which they brought forward in the House would be scanned and criticised

    263
    closely by hon. Members from Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman and those acting with him would conceive it to be their duty in the future to place such Votes as this in such a position that hon. Members of the House would be able to discuss them as fully as they deserved.
    MR. O'MARAsaid it had been stated in the course of the debate that this item was 75 per cent, higher than the original Estimate. They would find, if they took the trouble to look it up, that this Supplementary Estimate was 300 per cent, larger than last year's Estimate, and he wished to bring to the notice of the Committee the fact that last year's Estimate covered six months of the war in South Africa, including those long telegraphic communications relating to the Bloemfontein Conference and the negotiations which preceded it. No details had been placed before the House to show that the number of telegrams sent in the period for which this extra sum was asked was larger than during the period he had just alluded to, and he could not under-

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Dovd, John

    Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud

    Hammond, John

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

    Boland, John

    Hemphill, Rt, Hon. Charles H.

    O'Malley, William

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Mara, James

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Labouchere, Henry

    Perks, Robert William

    Cameron, Robert

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Leng, Sir John

    Reddy, M.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Levy, Maurice

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lundon, W.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cogan, Denis J.

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Colville, John

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roche, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Dermott. Patrick

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Govern, T.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

    Daly, James

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Delany, William

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Tully, Jasper

    Dillon, John

    Murphy, J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Duffy, William J.

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

    White, Patrick(Meath, North)

    Edwards, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Norton, ('apt. Cecil William

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Evans, Samuel T.

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

    Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull,W.

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, Kandal (Tipperary Md

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Field, William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    Gilhooly James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Captain Donelan.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    stand why they were asked to pay at the rate of 300 per cent, more this year. He wished to join in the protest which had been made from the Irish benches against being asked to vote such large sums of money without having sufficient details. Ireland would be called upon to pay its quota to this expenditure, and therefore they bad a right to examine closely every item of expenditure which was placed before the House. Supplementary Estimates required a greater amount of consideration than the ordinary Estimates, because it was money required in excess of the ordinary requirements, and for that very reason they required to be more carefully examined. He would not go into the question of the contents of those telegrams, but be would like the Colonial Secretary to tell them how it was that three times as much money had been spent this year as was spent in the previous year.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 30.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    FitzGerald. Sir Robert Penrose-

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Purvis, Robert

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Pym, C. Guy

    Austin, Sir John

    Forster, Henry William

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Garfit, William

    Reed, James (Greenock)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H (CityofLond.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Balcarres, Lord

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Edon

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Renwick, George

    Banbury, Fredk. George

    Greene, Sir E.W.(BurySt. Ed,)

    Ridley. Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Ritehie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

    Bigwood, James

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bond, Edward

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Bowles. Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

    Hain, Edward

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

    Russell, T. W.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Bull, William James

    Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Milliard, Sir Harry

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

    Caldwell, James

    Heath, J. (Statfords., N.W.)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

    Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cavendish, V.C.W, (Derbysh.

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Smith, HC (Northmb. Tyneside

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knowles, Lees

    Spear, John Ward

    Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.

    Lawson, John Grant

    Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich,)

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

    Lee, Capt. A. H (Hants, Farehm

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Charrington, Spencer

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stroyan, John

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Cook, Frederick Lucas

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Valentia, Niscount

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

    Cubitt, Hon Henry

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

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton

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

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Malcolm, Ian

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Durning-Lawrence Sir Edwin

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Faber, George Denison

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Finch, George H.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    6. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,015, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
    MR. DALZIELsaid it was a matter of some surprise that a proper representative of the Government had not on this motion thought it is duty to make some expla-
    266
    nation of the Vote. It differed from other Votes which the Committee had been discussing, inasmuch as it was not a Supplementary Estimate, but practically a new Vote. Pie protested in the most emphatic fashion against a new Vote, embodying a new principle, and practically creating a new office, being smuggled through in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate. He objected to the manner in which the Vote had been brought forward, and maintained that before the country was pledged to an expenditure on this new head, the permission of the House of Commons ought to have been obtained. As the result of an

    267
    understanding which had been come to with the House of Commons, the Great Seal Act of 1884 was passed, and the duties in connection with the office of Lord Privy Seal were abolished. Since that time many distinguished men had filled the office of Lord Privy Seal in an honorary capacity; at any rate, they did not receive any remuneration for any services which it was imaginable they discharged. These included Lord Rosebery, Lord Cross, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Cadogan, Lord Tweedmouth, and Lord Salisbury himself. His objection to this Vote was not of a personal character in regard to the present distinguished occupant of the post. No member of the Cabinet was held in higher respect by his political opponents than the Prime Minister; and some of them were, in these later days, only beginning to realise the great debt of gratitude which they owed to the Prime Minister for carrying the country through troublous times in a peaceful and diplomatic fashion. It was in no personal sense, then, that he objected to this Vote; but he thought the Committee was entitled to some explanation. What could that explanation be? There was plenty of money in the Treasury chest, and there was no reason to reestablish this office except that explained in a letter which the Prime Minister wrote to a late distinguished colleague of his, the former President of the Local Government Board, the Member for Sleaford, in which the Prime Minister said that there were so many people to make room for that the right hon. Gentleman had to give up his post. That was the reason why they were asked to go back on a decision the House of Commons arrived at many years ago, and to re-establish an office which was purely ornamental and a sinecure. He could imagine the Prime Minister, after having listened to every claim made upon him, and having surrendered to it, sitting down in Hatfield and acknowledging to himself that he had given so much away that he had nothing left for himself. For what was his position? He was no longer Foreign Secretary—he had given that post away. He had no salary; not even an office to which his letters could be addressed. And therefore he had to make up his mind to confer upon himself some post; and so
    268
    hit upon that of the Lord Privy Seal. He (the hon. Member) objected to a salary being attached to this post. It seemed to him that if the Prime Minister was to be paid—and ho thought he ought to lie paid, and well paid—then the salary ought to be asked for on the footing of Premiership, and that it ought not to be brought forward on a Vote of this kind for an office which had no duties attached to it. If the Prime Minister was to have a salary, then it ought to be a respectable salary. He could not understand how the noble Lord arrived at the conclusion that £2,000 a year was what he was worth. He might have sent for Whitaker s Almanack, and gone down the list of Ministers, and when he came to the Colonial Secretary ho might have said, "What does that great man get for his transcendent services to the country? £5,000! And he might have said to himself, "If the Colonial Secretary receives £5,000 a year, I ought to write myself down at half that sum." He (the hon. Member) objected to the fact that the Prime Minister received only £2,000 per year when his subordinates— for, after all, they were his subordinates —received more than double that sum. Why, the salary of the Clerk of the House of Lords was more, and a town council engineer received more. He protested in the interest of the Prime Minister, who, it seemed to him, had been very badly treated. Lord Salisbury had been placed in a situation which appealed to the generous instincts of our nature, and if none of his friends stood up for him it was necessary for some hon. Members on that side of the House to do so. He objected also that the, Prime Minister should so undervalue himself. He did not think that he ought to be allowed to become a kind of Parliamentary blackleg. He ought to belong to the Parliamentary trade union, and should not take less than trade union wages, or less than an Under Secretary who read out answers to questions in the House of Commons and was not capable of explaining them. Therefore he thought the noble Lord was entitled to their sympathy. He did not go so far as to say that the same course should be pursued here as had been taken in some other countries. He believed that from the time the war broke out between Spain

    269
    and America the Spanish Ministers went on half rations. He did not suggest that Ministers here should go on half rations, or that they should make a subscription on behalf of the Prime Minister. But some more satisfactory way should be taken of dealing with the Prime Minister. Further, a most extraordinary departure from constitutional rule had been made in the preparation of this Estimate. They were asked to vote a sum at the rate of £400 a year for the private secretary to the Prime Minister. That was an innovation. The Constitution knew nothing of the Prime Minister; and he doubted whether there was any record of the House which spoke of the private secretary of the Prime Minister. They might just as well put down a sum for the private secretary of the parish minister. It might have been put down as salary of the private secretary to the Lord Privy Seal, but not as secretary to the Prime Minister; and some explanation was required why this item had been prepared in that particular way. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote might say, "It is all very well, but what could the Prime Minister have done? He must have some claim on the country; he must have some salary." It was very difficult to answer these questions; but he might have left some of his friends out of the Cabinet, or, at all events, he might have induced some of his present colleagues to give up their posts—the Colonial Secretary, for instance, who has had a very busy time of it for the last few years. He might have offered to take the duties of that arduous Department, and induced the right hon. the Colonial Secretary to go to another place with some seductive title. It was disgraceful that the Prime Minister should have no official office, although the Foreign Secretary had shown so much sympathy with him as to offer him a room in the Foreign Office. But that was not the way to treat the Prime Minister, who might have got a seat in
    270
    the Colonial Secretary's office with a big seal stamp handy on his desk. The Committee was entitled to some explanation for this departure from a bargain solemnly passed by the House of Commons taking away all the duties and the salary of the Lord Privy Seal; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee that he would either withdraw the Tote or bring forward a handsome sum, worthy of the great services of the Prime Minister of the country.
    THE FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not quite understand whether the hon. Member wished to deprive the Prime Minister of his moderate salary or to increase it to the more substantial figure which some other Members of the Cabinet are fortunate enough to enjoy. The hon. Member appeared to oscillate between the two. The hon. Member commenced his speech by complaining that the House of Commons has been forced, without notice, into this new policy. Surely we did all we could to take the House of Commons into our confidence at the earliest opportunity by putting this Vote down as a Supplementary Estimate at the very beginning of the first session that has occurred since the arrangement was made. There was a meeting in December, but the object of that meeting was strictly limited, and I do not think that any discussion on this matter could arise then. This, therefore, is the first opportunity that we have had.
    MR. DALZIEL: He has had the money before.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not complain of the hon. Member's raising the point on this occasion. I make some subtractions from that part of the hon.

    271
    Gentleman's speech which was really not meant to argue for an increase of the Prime Minister's salary, but was intended for the indulgence of some ingenious sarcasm at the expense of some of the Prime Minister's colleagues. As regards his comments as to the actual course pursued, it is perfectly true that there were certain incongruities and inconsistencies in the course taken, and why was it? Because, as everybody knows, the Prime Minister is not formally recognised in the Constitution, although he is the most important person in the Ministry. That is one of the curious results of our Constitution which has slowly grown up in the course of centuries. There are these apparent inconsistencies in the Constitution, and we should be slow to interfere with them, for they do no harm to the growth of our institutions. We all know that there is a Prime Minister; we all know that he does not appeal among the officers of the State as such. Sometimes he is called the First Lord of the Treasury, sometimes he is called Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer, and sometimes Lord Privy Seal, but never has he been called Prime Minister in the formal proceedings of the House. That being so, we have to fit our arrangements into this somewhat anomalous state of things. I think the plan we have adopted is not a bad one. The office of Privy Seal was vacant, and it is one to which the duties of the Prime Minister may be attached as well as to the office of First Lord of the Treasury or Foreign Secretary; and the hon. Gentleman himself is first to acknowledge that he should not be an unpaid Member of the Government and that we must attach a salary to the office. Of course, should the present holder of the office of Privy Seal cease to be Prime Minister, his salary would cease at the same time, and should he resign the office of Privy Seed and another gentleman
    272
    be appointed to the office who was not Prime Minister, he would not receive the salary. So long as the duties are associated with the Prime Minister it is quite clear that you ought to make the office a paid office. The hon. Gentleman tells us that the salary of £2,000 a year is insufficient. I am quite willing, to agree with him that that salary is no measure, absolutely or relatively, of the services of the Prime Minister to the State; but £2,000 a year is the old salary attaching to this office of Privy Seal; it is the salary which the Prime Minister himself suggested; and, though agree that on any scale of merit it is inadequate, if the Prime Minister himself is contented I do not know that either my colleagues or the House of Commons need interfere in the matter. That is the broad explanation of the policy that has been pursued, and I feel sure it will commend itself to the House at large; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that I have justified the course which the Government have taken.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt ingeniously with the question raised by my hon. friend; but he passed over the fons et origo of the difficulty, which was the great mistake that he has committed in recent years of divorcing the position of the head of the Ministry from the occupant of the office of First Lord of the Treasury. That office is the natural and proper one to be held by the Prime Minister; and it is peculiar that, though, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Premiership has sometimes been associated with the Foreign Secretaryship and sometimes with the office of First Lord of the Treasury, it has only been associated with the Foreign Secretaryship in the case of Lord Salisbury himself; and nothing but evil came to the country from the combination of these two

    273
    offices. I have not a word to say in depreciation of Lord Salisbury, either as Foreign Secretary or as Prime Minister; but I say it is perfectly impossible that any man can properly fulfil the functions of both offices. I will take the case of the Foreign Office. Undoubtedly Lord Salisbury devoted an enormous amount of time —and probably prejudiced his health by his devotion—to the duties of the Foreign Minister. He has filled that great position with great success and to the great advantage of the nation, but during all that time every one can see that the proper business of the Prime Minister, which is to keep in proper coordination his own colleagues and to keep a master-eye on all their proceedings —anyone can see that that was neglected. Taking the work of the Foreign Office alone, we lose the advantage of a second head assisting the man nominally at the head of the office. When there is a Prime Minister as well as a Foreign Secretary all the Foreign Office work, all telegrams, despatches, and so forth are submitted to the judgment of the Prime Minister; and thus there is an additional guarantee that the affairs of the country are being wisely and deliberately administered. It has often surprised me that the country and the House of Commons bore so patiently a state of things so obviously prejudicial to the public interest. At last Lord Salisbury, partly owing to his health being overtaxed, determined to give up one of these offices, lie retained the Premiership. The proper course would have been for him to take the position of First Lord of the Treasury. As we all know, the emoluments of public functionaries vary considerably, and I am not at all sure that that variance is altogether in the public interest. I think there is a great deal to be said for a rearrangement in such a way as to bring about greater equality; but that is not before us now. We have only to do with this particular arrangement,
    274
    made to meet an emergency. I confess that to my mind there was a way of meeting it which would not have involved the recreation of a sinecure office, and that was to have made the Prime Minister First Lord of the Treasury, and to have made some other arrangement of the other offices among the distinguished Gentlemen on the bench opposite. The office of First Lord of the Treasury— and I speak in the presence of one who knows it well—has this advantage, that it has little or no departmental work attaching to it. It has a certain amount of agreeable duty in the way of the bestowal of patronage and in the selection of the recipients of good things, which is always an easy, a charming, and a delightful duty. But, except for that, I do not think the First Lord of the Treasury is overworked. Therefore it is an office particularly suitable to the man who has to exercise a general supervising power over the Proceedings of the Departments of State. That is the proper arrangement, and I regret that the Government have found themselves forced to revive the salary for an office which is almost the last surviving sinecure in the public service.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the matter was undoubtedly one of great public importance. The Committee were asked to vote a salary for an office every duty of which had been abolished by Act of Parliament many years ago, and the Committee had been told the reason. For the first time the title of Prime Minister appeared on the Papers of the House.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, no. If the hon. Member will look at the Estimates for past years, he will find the same words—"Private Secretary to the Prime Minister."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the office of Prime Minister was unknown to the

    275
    Constitution, and the introduction of the title in the Estimates was another example of the slipshod English in which they were framed. But, although the title was unknown, the office was not, and it had been amply provided for ever since the time of Sir Robert Walpole, when the Treasury was put into commission in such a way, and the position of the First Lord so provided for, that although he had an office of dignity and proper emoluments, he was freed from Parliamentary duties in order that he might be able to oversee his colleagues and supporters. The proper function of the Prime Minister was to oversee his colleagues in the Government; and he was bound to say that, since the recent changes in the Government had been effected, the Government had received a great accession of strength from the circumstance that Lord Salisbury, as Prime Minister, had been restored to a position which enabled him to superintend the work of his colleagues. During the time that Lord Salisbury was both Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary each department was allowed to do what seemed best in its own eyes, and the result of this absence of control had been that mistakes of the gravest character were committed. The Duke of Wellington had said that it was impossible for anyone to exercise the office of Prime Minister unless he was also First Lord of the Treasury, because it was essential that he should have that control of the purse-strings which the latter office gave him. Why, recently Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords made a strong and determined attack on the Treasury for the manner in which it met the demands upon it for the public service. If Lord Salisbury were First Lord of the Treasury, which he ought to be as Prime Minister, that state of things could not have occurred. The Government had; been reconstituted and strengthened— (Opposition laughter) — well, reconstituted—and there should have been no difficulty whatever in finding for the right lion. Gentleman the Leader of the House another post, so that the office of First Lord of the Treasury might revert to the Prime Minister. He hoped the Leader of the House would not be offended when he said that the right hon. Gentleman en-
    276
    joyed the emoluments and dignities of the office without discharging any of its duties. But if the Government had had the courage of their convictions, what they should have done was to boldly propose to create the office of Prime Minister and endow it with a salary of £5,000 a year. He submitted, that it was not a proper thing to come down and ask this House to endow the Prime Minister with an insufficient salary in the name of an office which was so discredited that it had been, abolished by Act of Parliament years ago.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Committee were discussing a very important question. He believed there was one point on which all sections of the Committee were agreed: —namely, that the change which bad been made was one in many respects for the better. No one had the least objection to the Prime Minister bung relieved from the terrible burden of the Foreign Secretaryship; the point on which the First Lord of the Treasury and the Committee were at variance was the method by which the Prime Minister had been relieved from the duties of the Foreign Office. By the Act of 1884—"to simplify the passing of instruments under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom"—it was enacted that it "shall not be necessary that any instrument shall, after the passing of this Act, be passed under the Privy Seal," or, in other words, the functions of the Privy Seal were practically abolished by that statute. Yet here, by a Supplementary Estimate, they were practically repealing the principal effect of that Act. The Committee would remember some time ago, when Colonel King-Harman was a Member of this House, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland attempted to establish in the Estimates a position for an Under Secretaryship for Ireland. That was opposed, and, after considerable discussion, the Chief Secretary had to withdraw his proposals, as it was found to be impossible to carry them through without

    277
    a special Act of Parliament.† Yet the Committee, now, were asked to re-establish, by a Supplementary Estimate, an office which had long been abolished, when it was found impossible to establish a paltry Under Secretaryship without an Act of Parliament. He quite agreed as to the wisdom of Lord Salisbury being relieved from the duties of the Foreign Office, and he was strongly of opinion that had Lord Salisbury, being Prime Minister, coupled that duty with a less onerous office in the past, the history of the last year and a half would have been less sanguinary. The action of the Government in reviving the office of the Lord Privy Seal was simply a palinode. The First Lord of the Treasury, which was the proper office for the Prime Minister to hold, had a general control over the expenditure of the country, and was thus able to control the different heads of the Departments of the Government; but the Lord Privy Seal had no such control, and it was never intended he should. Now the Government proposed to re-establish an abolished office, and to recreate a salary which was never intended to be recreated. His hon. friend had been more than justified in the position he had taken up in this matter.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that out of doors this would be thought one of those infinitesimal questions on which the House of Commons occupied itself to the exclusion of important business. It was as small as the question of the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. The hon. Member for King's Lynn suggested that it would be better for the First Lord of the Treasury to resign his office so that the Prime Minister should assume it, and that he, in turn, should be Lord Privy Seal. That was a suggestion which, if acted upon, would open the door for the strongest opposition from the other side. The office of Lord Privy Seal had not been abolished, and it was not so many years ago that a Prime Minister in the House of Commons assumed it in addition to his other. He remembered
    † See The parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. cccxxiii., pages 730, 1709; vol cccxxiv., page 725; vol. cccxxv., page 909; vol. cccxxvi., page 208.
    278
    that Lord Malmesbury, when he held the office, was extremely useful in the House of Lords, calling himself the odd man. It was an office of great dignity, ranking very high in the order of precedence, and was therefore suitable as an appanage of the Prime Minister, who had resigned the onerous office of Foreign Secretary. The unrivalled power of work Lord Salisbury had enabled him, until recently, to carry on the duties of Foreign Secretary in addition to those of the head of the Government, but it was not surprising that, with advancing age, he should wish to be relieved of the direct duties of Secretary of State. No doubt, as Prime Minister, he would exercise supervision over the foreign policy of the country, and it was appropriate that the office of Lord Privy Seal should be held by him.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not at all agree with the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down. He did not think anything that touched the office of Prime Minister or touched the British Constitution should be considered infinitesimal in that House. Without knowing it themselves, and without, he was sure, any intention on the part of the Government, they had been plunged deep into the mysteries of the British Constitution. He did not object to the specific arrangement proposed that day that this salary should be attached to this particular office so long as it was held by the Prime Minister, but questions had been raised as to the character of the office itself, and as to the existence of any duties attached to the office. He thought the time had come when, before proceeding to vote a salary for an office to which they were told no duties were attached, they should have legal advice. He asked the Attorney General to tell them what was the legal status of this officer. He had before him the Act of Parliament of 1884, to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred. The Act declared that no legal instrument need, after that date, be passed under the Privy Seal. He wished to know whether that phrase included all the duties attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it did.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONknew that the hon. Member thought so, but in a matter of this sort the Committee ought to be guided by its legal adviser. Did the Act of 1884 sweep away all the duties formerly attached to the office, and, if not, what were the duties now attached to it?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said that the Committee should consider the matter in the light of common sense. Could it be supposed that before the passing of the Act of 1884 much time was actually spent by the Lord Privy Seal in passing legal instruments? The Lord Privy Seal would not personally look after matters of that kind. The office had existed for a very long time. In other days there were duties attached to the office which had now become obsolete; but the office bad been retained, and it had proved extremely useful. It had generally been a Cabinet office, and he thought it was a very happy phrase which was used by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester, that the holder of the office had on one occasion been a sort of "odd man" in the Cabinet, ready, to do any duty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not pretend that the duties were onerous, but the Act of 1884 did not abolish the office altogether. The truth was that the office existed, it had been held for a long time past by a Cabinet Minister, and he ventured to think that an office of this kind, with no departmental duties attached to it, might be extremely useful.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid this question had been raised without any personal reference at all to Lord Salisbury. It was purely as a matter of expediency affecting the public service that his hon. friend had raised it. What they objected to on that side of the House was that they were asked to vote for the re-establishment of an office which was neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring—an office to which no duties
    280
    were attached. They were asked practically—and this was the complaint—to vote a salary, not for an office, but for a particular individual. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had said that if Lord Salisbury resigned the office of Lord Privy Seal the salary would cease with his leaving the office. It seemed to him an unconstitutional proposal that they should vote a salary, not for an office, but for a person. What they desired was to have a Prime Minister with a proper salary. He certainly thought, so far as the debate had gone, that the general feeling was that the Prime Minister ought not to receive a salary from the country of lesser amount than that of any of his colleagues. He was merely looking at this question from the point of view of the public service, and he was bound to say that he agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that they might to have created at tin-present moment an office for the Prime Minister in the House of Lords. He hoped the Government would take that into consideration. He knew they could not do it off-hand, but be thought that a great many Members felt very strongly that a suitable office ought to be created for the Prime Minister, as well as a suitable office for the Leader of the House of Commons.
    MR. MALCOLMsaid the Prime Minister was regarded with great respect on both sides of the House. They were lucky in having got the Prime Minister so cheap. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had put forward a most unconstitutional doctrine. He actually said that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of Commons should exchange their respective official positions. The hon. Member for King's Lynn brought in the Duke of Wellington as a great constitutional authority. He never thought the hon. Member would subscribe to the opinion that the First Lord of the Treasury in the House of Commons should give up control of the purse, or that he would go further and; say that Lord Salisbury should be First Lord of the Treasury in the other House. They had always understood it to be the privilege of the House of Commons to have control of the purse. The doc-

    281
    trine laid down by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was quite unworthy of the hon. Member.
    *MR. HEMPHILLregretted that the Attorney General had not indicated to the Committee the duties now attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal. The Act of Parliament expressly said that no instrument need be passed under the Privy Seal; the office of Lord Privy Seal had ceased to have any utility. True in old times Privy Seal was an important office, and through the holder of it the sanction of the Sovereign was expressed in relation to many matters; but that importance no longer existed. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury should be a Member of the House of Commons, but that did not solve the question. They had now a 20-horse power Cabinet. There was no precedent in history for a Cabinet of twenty learned and unlearned Lords, and surely out of the score one might be First Lord of the Treasury and sit in the Commons. How right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords should shift and settle their offices he would not presume to suggest, but certainly he desired the presence of the present First Lord of the Treasury so long as they were afflicted with the present Administration. In these parlous times they had no right to saddle the country with a salary of £2,000 a year for an office which had not existed since 1884. They were not in such affluent circumstances, in such golden times, in such rosy seasons that, with an income tax of probably 1s. 6d. in the £1, and an addition to the National Debt of £100,000,000, the interest for which the taxpayers must provide, they could throw away £2,000 a year. With Irish unselfishness he would not grudge the Prime Minister £2,000 if he thought he needed it, but that was out of the question, and he doubted if constitutionally the House would be justified in voting the money; but in any case, there was no reason for doing so. If the Prime Minister chose to give up the seals of the Foreign Office for the purpose of getting rid of some of the Cabinet, and replacing them by other followers, he ought to do it at his own expense.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have rather thought that the speech we have just heard might have been considered a worthy termination of a debate which has not been very serious or addressed to any very serious constitutional problem. So far as I can discover, three main objects have been had in view by hon. Members in the criticisms they have offered. In the first place they have repeated that rather time-worn attack upon the association of the office of Prime Minister with the post of Foreign Secretary. The Leader of the Opposition dwelt at length on that subject, and the hon. Member for Scotland Division followed his example. We do not agree with the view expressed. We think that the period Lord Salisbury was able to devote to the offices of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary combined was marked by great benefit to the country, and if that combination has ceased it is not because in Lord Salisbury's opinion, and certainly not in that of his colleagues, it was otherwise than beneficial, but because, unfortunately, the strength of the Prime Minister is not equal to supporting the weight of two such onerous offices at the same time. A less amiable object hon. Members have had in view is an attack on the Colonial Secretary. ["No."] Certainly three or four speakers explained at length that, had not the Prime Minister been also Foreign Secretary a year and a half ago there would not have been war in South Africa. I am surprised at the extraordinarily minute knowledge displayed of what goes on in the Cabinet by gentlemen who are not there. They speak with absolute assurance of the relations of one Minister to another, and of matters upon which they can have no knowledge, all founded on conjecture springing from party zeal and a fervid imagination. The third object of the debate appears to me to be to turn the Prime Minister into the First Lord of the Treasury, and the First Lord of the Treasury into the Lord Privy Seal. That was the amiable suggestion of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. Ho said, as others have said, that commonly, though very far from universally, the office of Prime Minister has been associated with the office of First Lord of the Treasury;

    283
    and that was justified by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the ground that the First Lord of the Treasury had little or no administrative work to perform. Well, that is true even in a greater degree in regard to the Lord Privy Seal, and if the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury has not any Department is a good reason for very frequently associating with that office the Prime Minister ship, it appears ample justification for the course the Government has actually taken, which is that of choosing an office which has never been abolished, which is legally constituted, and has been continuously filled by some member of the Government up to the present moment, on the very ground that it has not got duties associated with it, and that therefore the holder of the office has ample leisure for carrying out the great duties of Prime Minister. Then my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn thinks that as the Leader of the House has nothing to do, as he leads a leisured life, a life of ease and luxury, the office is not worthy of its emolument. Well, Sir. I wish my hon. friend would for a week fill the office which he is so eminently qualified to adorn; his well-known appetite for work, I think, would find ample satisfaction. Whether or not his particular style of Parliamentary oratory would be suited to the special functions of the Leader of the House, at all events I am certain he would not find it a sinecure office. But my hon. friend fell into one mistake. He said, truly enough, that the position of Prime Minister should be a position of dignity, but added that therefore he should be First Lord of the Treasury instead of being Lord Privy Seal. As a matter of fact, the First Lord of the Treasury has no technical dignity or rank, he ranks behind every Secretary of State in point of dignity, and the Lord Privy Seal ranks before every Secretary of State in point of dignity. The Lord Privy Seal is next, I think, to the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Chancellor.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When he is a peer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. It is a position of the highest dignity, and is
    284
    therefore very suitable for the Prime Minister; and I can see no objection whatever to the course which the Government have pursued, except the singular objection which has been urged with kind persistency by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the salary of £2,000 a year is not adequate for the Prime Minister of this country. I do not deny that, but this is all that has been suggested by the Prime Minister himself. If, however, I understand that, nemine contradicente, a larger amount would be unanimously voted, if I could receive some assurance that that would pass without debate, discussion, or the expenditure of time, it might be worth considering whether the Vote might not be withdrawn and a higher salary proposed. But, on the whole, I am inclined to think that, however generous hon. Gentlemen may be in these suggestions of increased pay when these suggestions have not the immediate effect of expediting public business, their and our would notably cool if the proposal were made; and I am convinced that we should find a remarkable and unexpected number of persons who, when it came to the point, would say that, after all, if the Prime Minister was content with £2,000 it would be perfectly monstrous in these hard times to extract from the hard-wrung British taxpayer an additional £3,000. In these circumstances I venture to suggest to the House that our policy is in accordance with constitutional usage, that it gives to the Prime Minister an office of great dignity which, outside his duties as Prime Minister, inflicts on him no extra labour and involves no expenditure of time, and that it is an arrangement which is economical to the, taxpayer. I do not think any other arrangement which could be suggested could combine all those advantages, or even a majority of them. I venture to suggest, therefore, that the House might now consent to accept the arrangement, which, as far as I can judge, meets all the necessities of the case.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not desire to attack any hon. Member opposite. I am quite ready to admit, for the sake of argument, that right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench are in the estimation of every one of their followers

    285
    most fitted to sit on that bench, and I am also prepared to admit that every gentleman on that Bench is best fitted to occupy the particular office he holds; but notwithstanding the great wisdom of these gentlemen they are in my opinion now doing a thing in a very stupid manner. Their object is perfectly legitimate— namely, to give a salary to the Prime Minister. Why do they not propose a salary for the Prime Minister, instead of giving him a salary by a bye-wind and reviving the dormant office of Lord Privy Seal? No one would deny that the Prime Minister should have private secretaries, and that they should be paid. No one would wish to vote against that part of the Vote, but the reason why I intend to vote against the salary of the Lord Privy Seal is that I consider it more consistent with the dignity of this House that when we have a Prime Minister we ought to vote him a salary, and an adequate salary. It is said that the Prime Minister has no constitutional existence. He has a constitutional existence, not by statute but by usage. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring forward a motion such as he suggested, giving a salary to the Prime Minister, so far as I am concerned—and I think I speak for many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House—we are perfectly prepared to support it. I am ready to withdraw my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will carry out his own proposal, withdraw this Vote and propose an adequate salary for the Prime Minister. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £758.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £257, be granted for the said service." (Mr. Labouchere.)
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, as was pointed out by the hon. Member who had just-spoken, one great advantage of the Prime Minister having a salary was that it could

    AYES.

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

    Boland, John

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

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

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Carew, James Laurence

    Ambrose, Robert

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Carvill, Patrick George H.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Channing, Francis Allston

    be reduced if he went wrong. He thought Lord Salisbury was the most eminent statesman and most valuable Foreign Secretary, and he had the highest opinion of his general ability, but nevertheless he for one reason would support the Amendment. He would frankly state why. It was because on a recent occasion Lord Salisbury gave very bad advice to the Sovereign. He did not support the Amendment because Lord Salisbury was called Lord Privy Seal, but because in his opinion he very badly advised His Majesty—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot on this Vote bring up a matter, of that sort.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid that he would bow to the Chairman's decision, and as he could not bring forward his special point he would not take up the time of the Committee. Everyone would, however, understand why he supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.
    MR. COGHILLsaid he intended to vote in favour of the Amendment. It seemed to him that the Government were not proceeding in the right way in the matter, and he would oppose the motion, because it inflicted £2,000 a year on the taxpayers. He thought that there was plenty of money, if properly distributed, to properly pay all the members of the Cabinet. The question was how was it to be allocated? If there was to be a Prime Minister, by all means let him be paid liberally and generously, but he did not think that, at a time like the present, any additional burden should be placed on the country.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes. 107; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 31.)

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Shaughnessy, J. P.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Power. Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Cullinan, J,

    Levy, Maurice

    Rea, Russell

    Daly, James

    Lloyd-George, David

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Lough, Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, JohnE. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Dillon, John

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Roche, John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Govern, T.

    Scott, Chas.Prestwich (Leigh)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Sullivan, Donal

    Duffy, William J.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dunn, Sir William

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

    Edwards, Frank

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Emmott, Alfred

    Murphy, J.

    Tully, Jasper

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Nolan,Col.JohnP. (Galway,N.

    Ure, Alexander

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Warner,ThomasCourtenay T.

    Field, William

    Norman, Henry

    Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

    White, Patrick (Meath, North

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Gilhooly, James

    0' Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

    Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson,Chas. Henry(Hull,W.)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Woodhouse,Sir J. T. (Huddersf'

    Haldane, Richard Burden

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

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Hammond, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly,James(Rosc'mmon,N

    Mr. Labouchere and Mr.

    Hayne,Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

    O'Malley, William

    Dalziel.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon.CharlesH.

    O'Mara, James

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Goschen, Hon. George J.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Archdale, Edwin Mervyn

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Green, WalfordD.(Wedn'sbr'y

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

    Greene, Sir E. W. (BurySt.Ed.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cook, Frederick Lucas

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Balfour,RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Hain, Edward

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Beach,Rt. Hn.SirM. H. (Bristol

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hamilton,RtHn Lord G.(Mid'x

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

    Hamilton,.Marq of (L'ndnd'rry

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Bigwood, James

    Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

    Harris, F.Leverton(Tynem'uth

    Bill, Charles

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Doxford, Sir WilliamTheodore

    Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N.W.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Helder, Augustus

    Bond, Edward

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Henderson, Alexander

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex

    Faber, George Denison

    Hope,J.F. (Shef'ld, Brightside

    Bowles, T.Gibson(King'sLynn

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Howard, Cap. J (Kent,Faversh.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Bull, William James

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Finch, George H.

    Knowles, Lees

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lawrence, William F.

    Butcher, John George

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawson, John Grant

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

    Lee,Cap. A. H.(Hants, Fareh'm

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Flower, Ernest

    Leighton, Stanley

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.

    Gibbs,Hn. A. G. H. (CityofLond

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

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

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

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    288

    289

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Plummer, Walter R,

    Stanley,HonArthur(Ormskirk

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Stanley,Edward.Jas.(Somerset

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

    Purvis, Robert

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Pym, C. Guy

    Stroyan, John

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Talbot,Rt Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Uni.)

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Thornton, Percy M.

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Renwick, George

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ridley,Hon.M. W(Stalybridge

    Valentia, Viscount

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Ridley,S. Forde(BethnalGreen

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Milner, Rt. Hn.SirFrederickG.

    Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Wason, John C. (Orkney)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Webb, Col. William George

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Welby,Lt-ColA.C.E(Taunton).

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Royds, Clement, Molyneux

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

    Russell, T. W.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Sadler. Col. Samuel Alexander

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

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Seely,Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

    Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

    Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (Renfrew)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Young,Commander (Berks, E.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Skewes Cox, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Nicol, Donal Ninian

    Smith,H. C(N'th'mb,Tyneside)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Spear, John Ward

    Percy, Karl

    Spencer, Ernest (W.Bromwich)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the:51st day of March, 1901, for Stationery. Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service".
    MR. FLYNNsaid that during the course of the discussion on these Supplementary Estimates they had had very extravagant sums to deal with; but the sum now asked for was sufficient to take away the breath of an ordinary Member of the House of Commons. A sum of £110,000 was asked for printing and binding books. One would have thought that all the books in the British Museum could have been printed and bound for that sum. It was time to realise the condition of things to which the House of Commons bad been reduced under the present Administration. Apparently the war was to be made the scapegoat for every extravagance, possible and impossible. It was to be made the excuse for Supple-
    290
    mentary Estimates absolutely without precedent. He defied the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to furnish a precedent for Supplementary Estimates of such magnitude as they were now considering. They had only recently discussed a Vote of over £17,000 for telegrams, which, however, might be accounted for by the high rates charged for telegrams to South Africa and West Africa; but, in his opinion, it was a most extravagant demand on the common sense of the country to ask for £110,000 for such a comparatively inexpensive article as paper, which, in the present days of cheap production, could be produced for a moderate sum. Was the Committee to be merely a body for registering the decrees of the Government? Ten years ago the Estimates were diligently, conscientiously, and carefully examined, but the House of Commons now had reached such a parlous condition —partly owing to the manner in which the Opposition had abrogated its functions as the guardian of the rights of the tax-payer—that all the Committee appeared able to do was to cheerfully vote the sums asked for by the Government. In the Vote before the Committee the amount asked for for printing for public departments was £233,000, the original Estimate being. £216,000. That was an

    291
    increase of £17,000. The next item— paper for public departments—showed an increase of £53,000, which certainly called for an explanation from the Secretary of the Treasury, without which he hoped the Committee would not have to vote it. He recognised that a somewhat exceptional condition of things existed, and that a demand had been made on the public service which would not have been made in ordinary circumstances, but he could not understand how a Supplementary Estimate should be so excessive as to be a fifth of the original Estimate, especially when such a comparatively cheap article as paper was concerned. The item for binding showed an increase of £8,500, although there was no information as to whether wages had increased. One of the disadvantages of the present position was that in previous Parliaments there was a Secretary to the Treasury who was competent to fill the position, and who had some knowledge of accounts. That position was now filled by a Minister, if he might call him so, who, from the condition of things, was a neophyte and an amateur, and could not give any explanation as to why the Estimates had been so extravagantly increased. He thought the Committee were entitled to something more than the scant courtesy and the bald explanation which had been given on previous Votes. He did not suppose there was any increase in the cost of material or labour, and surely there could not be such an enormous increase in the consumption of paper. An increase of £110,000 might be a small matter to hon. Members opposite, who displayed only the smallest Interest in the Estimates, and many of whom could not tell the difference between a Supplementary and an ordinary Estimate, but hon. Members from Ireland were very much concerned in the swollen Estimates which had been presented, and also in the unsatisfactory manner in which they had been submitted to the Committee. He trusted that they would have a satisfactory explanation from the Treasury as to how such an enormous increase had been incurred.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he thought that such a large increase required more explanation than was given
    292
    on the Paper. The only explanation on the Paper was that the large increase was caused by the war, but the war was going on when the original Estimate was prepared. Why was not provision then made for the stationery required in South Africa, and if such provision were made how was it possible that such a large increase in the Estimate was now necessary? This Supplementary Estimate suggested to him what he thought was really the explanation of all the increased Votes they were considering. He believed that they had not had fair Estimates presented to them at the beginning of the financial year, and that every Estimate was squeezed in order to make up for the cost of the war.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think there is one point which might give rise to misapprehension unless I deal with it at once. This is a Vote for the Stationery Office, but the whole of it is not required for articles ordinarily included in this Vote. Provision was made for the war when the original Estimate was framed, but the hon. Member for West Islington forgets, when he suggests that the war was in progress when we made the original Estimate, that that Estimate was framed in the last months of 1899, when it could not, be anticipated that the war would last so long, and no one can therefore be surprised that the provision which was then made for what is called stationery has proved insufficient for a war which is still going on. There are other items in the Vote which are not connected with the war, and which could not have been foreseen when the original Vote was framed. For instance, the Estimate was framed on the assumption that the census paper would be of the same quality as was used at the last census, but the Registrar General represented that a better class of paper would be required.
    MR. FLAVIN: Would the hon. Gentleman say how much of the increase is due to the better census paper?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; £600. If I may give another instance, I would mention the new forms of discharge required in the mercantile marine. The Stationery Office has to supply the demands of the other offices. I understand that a book instead of a loose paper is now required for the better protection of the mercantile marine, and that accounts for a sum of £1,300 of the extra Supplementary Estimate. I only mention these facts to show how the Estimate is made up, and also to show that these sums are sums which the Stationery Office could not have refused. With regard to the war, an enormous supply of paper is required for packing purposes as well as for stationery. There has been an increased expenditure for stationery in the ordinary sense of the word, and there has also been an increased demand for books of various kinds required on military service, as well as an increase in the printing for the Army in consequence of its increased size. Up to 1899 the War Office itself supplied all the paper it required for packing purposes, but since then the Stationery Office has been called upon to supply it. The items I have mentioned, and other items of a similar kind, account for the increased Vote, and I think there is very little in it that could have been foreseen. I cannot therefore accept the blame which the hon. Member for West Islington casts on the Stationery Office for not having foreseen this expenditure.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid the Vote gave him an opportunity of raising a question which he had long been anxious to raise, but which he was unable to bring forward before owing to the peculiar way in which the Estimate had been presented in recent years. Ireland would have to pay a large proportion of the Vote, and he should like to know what value she was to get for her money. He should like to ask the Secretary for the Treasury where the paper provided for in this Vote came from? He had seen some specimens of the paper on which the War Office did their correspondence, and certainly it
    294
    could not be much worse. He did not know whether it was made in Germany, but it was extraordinarily bad paper. He wished to know whether any of the paper purchased by the Stationery Office was made in Ireland, and whether Irish firms were given any facilities for tendering for contracts for paper. Extraordinarily good paper was made in Ireland. He did not know whether the paper used in the House of Commons was of Irish manufacture, but certainly quite as good paper was made in that country. He should like to receive an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that if Irish contractors had not been given an opportunity of tendering in the past, such opportunity would be given to them in the future. With reference to binding, that was one of the few arts still preserved in Ireland, and he would make the same request with regard to that. It seemed to him that a certain amount of the public expenditure such as was mentioned in the Estimate might be spent in Ireland with great advantage.
    MR. TULLYsaid he thought that the Secretary to the Treasury when he was explaining the Vote forgot that the total Estimate for 1900–1 was over £600,000, whereas the Estimate for 1889–9 was only £498,000. There had therefore been an increase of over £100,000, exclusive of the increase which had been put down to the war. The total amount now to be voted for printing and stationery was nearly three-quarters of a million. When the President of the Board of Agriculture was Secretary to the Treasury, he boasted in 1898 that he had reduced the figures for that year by £50,000, but instead of any decrease being effected in the present year there was an increase of £110,000, without any adequate explanation. The hon. Gentleman said that the Stationery Office was getting a better class of paper, but the better quality of paper had not fluctuated very much in price. It was the cheaper qualities of paper that were affected by the war. The war interfered with wood pulp paper, because steamers were taken for transport

    295
    purposes, and also because there was a rise in the price of chemicals. When the President of the Board of Agriculture was Secretary to the Treasury, he went direct to the mills instead of going to contractors, but he could not get any tenders from the mills, because they were warned that if they tendered they would he boycotted by the contractors. Owing to transactions such as that, the Government were unable to obtain paper from the mills, with the result that £11 0.000 had to be added to the Estimates in one year. When the President of the Board of Agriculture was striving to reduce these enormous figures, all sorts of difficulties were put in his way. He attempted to get the reporting of the House of Commons done cheaper, and the plan was adopted of slinging a cheap contract at his head. He went in for getting a low tender, and got a very bad contractor, who made a complete mess of the printing and publishing the debates of the House. By that means discredit was sought to be cast on the President of the Board of Agriculture because of his efforts to reduce the expenditure of the Stationery Office. He thought some explanation should have been given as to why £110,000 had to be added to the original Estimate, information should also be given as to who were the contractors for the supply of stationery used in the public Departments. Had the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary to the Treasury attempted to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor? Did he go to the mills for paper; and if he went to the mills, did he secure tenders; and if he did not, did not that prove that the ring which existed in the old days still existed? Although nearly three-quarters of a million was expended in printing and stationery, if the public wanted a Blue-book an almost prohibitive price was put upon it. A Blue-book which now cost 6s. could, if produced in a sufficient quantity, be obtained for 3d. or 4d. If the hon. Gentleman would put Blue-books at a low price on the market, the result would prove very remunerative. A daily newspaper might cost £1,000 to produce, but it was sold at a 1d. or ½d., whereas the Vote Office put on a Blue-book
    296
    the price they thought it cost to produce. They sold perhaps 500 books at one shilling, whereas if they offered 1,000 or 1,500 books at 6d. they would realise a substantial profit. He asked the hon. Gentleman whether he would not go in for such a system. He did not think there was any justification for the enormous increase now asked for. The better quality of paper used had very little to do with it, and if the money was not spent on paper, did it go as wages? The rate of wages for compositors had not increased in London. On the contrary, an effort was made to reduce it, and therefore no part of the increase went to the working man. He noticed that "Small Stores" were responsible for £29,000 of the increase. It was very convenient in drawing up an Estimate to cloak a lot of things under the title of "Small Stores." He did not think such an item could justify an increased expenditure of £29,000. Then there was an increase of £1,000 for parchment, and an increase of £53,000 for paper. He could not accept such items.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to he reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the report published in an evening paper that Lord Kitchener has been captured by De Wet?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir WILLIAM WALROND,): I have heard nothing about it.
    Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.

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

Aire and Calder Navigation [H. L.].

Bath Gas Light and Coke [H. L.].

Birmingham (City) Tramways [H. L.].

Bristol, Clifton, and West of England Zoological Society [H. L.].

Central London Railway [H. L.].

Chester Gas [H. L.].

City and Brixton Railway [H. L.].

City and South London Railway [H. L.].

Llanelly and Mynydd Mawr Railway [H.L.].

London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway [H. L.].

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas [H.L.].

Newport (Isle of Wight) Gas [H. L.].

New Swindon Gas [H. L.].

Shrewsbury Gas [H. L.].

South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways [H. L.].

South Essex Water [H. L.l.

Weston-super-Mare Gas [H. L.].

Wisbech Water [H. L.].

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1ª.

ISLINGTON AND EUSTON RAILWAY BILL.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Earl of Morley.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, this is one of several Bills dealing with electric railways in the Metropolis, and I should like to know if it is considered that the principle of these Bills is assented to by our not opposing them on Second Reading. I understand that an inquiry is being carried on at the present moment with regard to these Bills.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of Morley): I may state, in reply to the question of the noble Duke, that the reading of private Bills a second time in no way commits the House to the principle of these Bills. That is, I think, generally admitted. As the noble Duke will see, I have placed a motion on the Paper for Monday, which I hope your Lordships will approve, to refer the principle of those Bills to a Joint Committee. The Bills must be read a second time before they can go to that Committee; but the noble Duke need be under no apprehension that the House commits itself to the principle of the Bills by assenting to the Second Reading.
On Question agreed to. Bill read 2ª accordingly.

ARLESEY GAS BILL [H.L.]
  ASPATRIA, SILLOTH, AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]

    BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    BELFAST HARBOUR BILL [H.L.].
    BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [H.L.].
    BRISTOL CORPORATION (DOCKS AND RAILWAYS, ETC.) BILL [H. L.].
    BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H. L.].
    CHESTERFIELD IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.].
    DOVER CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H. L.].
    FOLKESTONE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H. L.].
    HARROGATE WATER BILL [H. L.].
    HENRY DIAPER AND COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [H. L.].
    HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD BILL [H. L.].
    KING'S NORTON AND NORTHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
    Read 2a

LEEDS CORPORATION (GENERAL ROWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]

    LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
    MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [H. L.].
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H. L.].
    NORTH-EAST LONDON BILL [H. L.].
    OAKHAM PICCADILLY WATER BILL [H. L.].
    PICCADILLY AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H. L.].
    POULTON-LE-FYLDE GAS BILL [H. L.].
    PRESTATYN WATER BILL [H. L.].
    RIPON CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    RUGBY WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H. L.].
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    SHIELDS BRIDGE BILL [H. L.].
    SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    SOUTHPORT WATER (TRANSFER BILL [H. L.].
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H. L.].
    STRATTON AND BUDE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H. L.].
    WARKWORTH HARBOUR BILL [H. L.].
    Read 2ª.

WEST AND SOUTH LONDON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Standing Order No. 86A considered (according to Order), and dispensed with. Leave given to present the said Bill. Bill presented and read 1ª.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER).
  Papers regarding British relations with the neighbouring tribes on the Northwest Frontier of India, and Punjab Frontier Administration; presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  I. Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland appointing the police cells at Haddington to be a legal prison for the detention of untried prisoners for a period not exceeding fourteen days before or during trial, and of convicted prisoners for a period not exceeding seven days from the date of conviction.
  II. Rules made by the Secretary for Scotland under the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, establishing new rates of dietaries for the several classes of prisoners.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) ACT, 1891, AND THE SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899.
  Rules dated 5th December, 1900.
  Laid before the House (pursuant Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

CHARITABLE AGENCIES FOR THE RELIEF OF WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
Commons Message considered (according to Order).
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD RAGLAN): My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.
Moved, "That this House do concur in the following resolution communicated by the Commons—namely, 'That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the various charitable agencies now in operation, and the funds available for relieving widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors, with a view to insuring that the funds subscribed by local and private benevolence are applied to the best advantage in supplementing a scheme of Government Pensions for widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors who have lost their lives in war.'" —(Lord Raglan.)
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is pursuing rather an unusual course in moving this motion without giving the House the slightest explanation. I want to know what is the object of this Committee. This matter has been before the public for a

173
great many years, particularly in connection with the Patriotic Fund, though since the Transvaal War it has come more into prominence as a result of the generous contributions which have been made to various funds in various parts of the country. Almost all the benevolent funds for the relief of those connected with the war have had large sums of money to distribute, and there has been a very strong feeling as to whether or not overlapping and abuse have followed in consequence. Though, of course, I may make some conjectures, I am quite at a loss to know what the object of this Committee is. I am not going to say a word in condemnation of the way the Patriotic Fund has been administered. All I will say is that I know it has not inspired confidence in the country; but at the same time I believe there has been a great deal of misrepresentation. As far as I can make out, there have been six or seven inquiries already of this kind. There was a Committee, over which my lamented friend the late Lord Herschell presided, in 1895; there was a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1896; there was a Committee of the Commissioners themselves, presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Davey, who I regret to see is not in his place to-day; there was the Committee appointed by His Majesty the King, then Prince of Wales; and the last Committee was the one held lately under the able chairmanship of Lord Justice Collins, and on which my noble friend Lord North-brook served. These Committees all made Reports, and finally there was a conference in the City, under the presidency of the ex-Lord Mayor (Sir Alfred Newton), when some important resolutions were carried in order to give effect to the different recommendations that were made by Lord Justice Collins's Committee. Is this Committee to go over all the old ground again? We have heard a great deal recently of committees and commissions, and I confess I am rather shy of them, for they often delay action which it is necessary should be taken. It was only a few nights ago that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government protested that, if a Committee was granted to my noble friend Lord Avebury on the subject of hours in shops, it must not be thought that the Government would be bound to follow the advice of any committee, although that
174
advice would have a considerable amount of weight. With regard to the Patriotic Fund, inquiry has been made ad nauseam; but possibly it is not for that purpose that this Committee is to meet. I notice that the terms of reference speak of a scheme which I should hail with great satisfaction—namely, a scheme of Government pensions for widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors who have lost their lives in war. We have not heard anything of that in this House, but it was one of the recommendations of Lord Justice Collins's Committee, and I suppose the Government have accepted it. It does not seem to me at all necessary to have a Committee to decide how the different funds are to be applied in supplementing such a scheme. The Government have already all the necessary information; and therefore, without wishing to oppose the noble Lord's motion, I think the House is entitled to some explanation with regard to it.
*LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I can only refer the noble Earl to what has been said on this subject in another place. It is proposed by the Government to start a scheme under which the widows and orphans of men who have lost their lives in the service of the country shall receive pensions out of public funds. That being so, the position of these funds, which have hitherto been the means of supporting them, will be changed, and they will become auxiliary. It is therefore necessary to devise some scheme for dealing with them. I am afraid that is all the information I can give the noble Earl on the subject.
*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I was a member of Lord Justice Collins's Committee, and I concur in what has fallen from the noble Earl (Lord Spencer) on this subject. I cannot understand how the Government should think it necessary to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to deal with a matter on which every single piece of information that can possibly be produced is before them. I also agree with my noble friend that, the House of Commons having asked for the appointment of a Committee, it would be ungracious to decline. But I wish that the noble Lord who represents the War Office in this House had been able to inform us what the scheme of pensions is which the Government are going to pro-

175
pose for the widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors who lose their lives in the service. Unless that scheme is notified beforehand, it would be perfectly useless for this Committee to undertake its labours. The whole of the future arrangements must depend upon what the amount of the pensions to be given by the Government is, and how far those pensions will extend; and unless that information is before the Joint Committee, I hold that the Joint Committee had very much better not meet. However, while associating myself with the observations made by the noble Earl with respect to the want of necessity for appointing this Committee, I am not prepared to oppose the appointment of the Committee.
*LORD WELBY: My Lords, as an individual member of the Patriotic Fund Commission, I should like to say that I have heard with great interest and satisfaction the statement made by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War with regard to the scheme of Government pensions for the widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors. That is an entirely new departure, and, as the noble Lord said, it makes the voluntary funds upon which we have hitherto relied supplementary. The noble Lord's motion has the assent of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, and I trust that the appointment of this Joint Committee will lead to a satisfactory arrangement. But I think it would assist the Committee very much if the Government were able to indicate in some form or other the lines on which they think that arrangement should be based.
On Question, agreed to; and message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.