Sitting of 21 March 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  WALLASEY IMPROVEMENT BILL. [BY ORDER.]
  MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)said he had to move an Instruction to the Committee to which the Wallasey Urban District Council Bill had been referred. It would be within the memory of hon. Members that during the year 1898 there was a, great agitation throughout the length and breadth of the land on the part of members of friendly societies, in regard to the matter raised by his Instruction. The agitation was due to the action of the East India Docks Company in instituting a shop club, and making it a condition of employment
  674
  that their men should belong to it. They also sought to lay down a provision that such of their men as were already members of friendly societies should cease such membership. The feeling raised by that proposal was so strong that the Government appointed a Shop Clubs Committee, which reported to the House in March, 1899. It was quite clear that the general feeling of the country was entirely against the proposal of the East India Docks Company, and that compulsory shop clubs were deemed to be opposed to the interests, not only of working men, but of the great friendly societies. The Shop Clubs Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, and which included in its members Mr. (now Justice) Cozens- Hardy, and the Registrar General of Friendly Societies, suggested that shop clubs should in future be registered under the Friendly Societies Acts. Now that was all that was proposed by the Instruction he was moving. What would be the effect of such registration? It would be to secure that no member of the club should be deprived of any pecuniary benefit by reason of his leaving his employment. This was of the utmost importance to working men, because, in the absence of such registration, a man who had joined a shop thrift or provident club, and had been in his employment for some years and contributed to the funds of the club, might be deprived of all benefit therefrom by reason of leaving his situation, and his contributions would be lost to him. The registration would also secure that the men should have a voice in the appointment of the committee of management of the club, and that, he suggested, was only reasonable. There were further provisions to secure the proper investment of the funds of the club, and to ensure that the organisation was on a solvent basis. The Report of the Committee to which he had referred recommended that the Registrar of Friendly Societies should, before registration, satisfy himself that the scheme of the club was satisfactory, not only to the employer hut also to the workmen. In the Bill now under consideration power was taken to form a Compulsory Superannuation Fund. The Shop Clubs Committee had recommended that it should not be lawful for any em-

  675
  ployer to make it a condition of employment that his workmen should join such a fund, and he certainly thought that, in any case where membership of a shop club was made compulsory, as under this Bill, the House would agree that it would only be fair and indeed necessary, in the interests of the employees, that registration, as ho suggested, should bo insisted upon. He was authorised by the National Conference of Friendly Societies to say that they unreservedly adopted the Report of the Shop Clubs Committee. Ho would like to remind the House that during the last Parliament the very clause he was now proposing was inserted in seven different private Bills, and even in the present session the Great Eastern Railway Company had accepted a similar provision, without any objection being raised on the part of the directors. That fact surely was sufficient proof that there could be no serious objection to the clause. They had been told in a circular issued by the Urban District Council of Wallasey that this proposal would render the scheme inoperative so far as the superior officers of the council were con-corned, inasmuch as it would admit the benefits to be granted under it in the form of superannuation and other allowances. But he would point out that the Wallasey Bill was not confined merely to a proposal affecting their more highly-paid officials. Their scheme was to apply to every man in their employ. He would have made no objection to the Bill had it merely provided for the superannuation of employees receiving salaries of £2 or £3 a week and upwards. There was another difficulty in dealing with questions of this nature in private Bills, and it arose from the fact that in these private; Acts the scheme itself was not set out so that the House or the Committee upstairs might judge whether or not it was fair. Instead of that the promoters of the Bill took power to set up a scheme after it had passed through the House. Was it right that anything of that kind should be allowed to be done? The promoters, in their circular, complained that if the Instruction were carried it would prevent them giving their higher-paid officials more than £200 in case of death, or a pension exceeding £50 a year on retirement, That was really not the ease, and the suggestion was merely a red herring
  676
  drawn across their path. The promoters said that the Bill already provided for the registration of their scheme by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. But that provision was a sham, for all that was provided was that the Registrar should register any scheme the Urban District Council chose to put forward, whether it was good or bad. He wanted the House to say that no scheme should be registered unless it was good, and met with the approval of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Then, again, the Wallasey Urban District Council com-plained that the clause was vague and indefinite. Surely if that were the case the Manchester Ship Canal Company would never have accepted such a clause, nor would other companies have done so. What was more, the very Instruction he was now moving went before a Committee in the last Parliament, and that Committee called before it the Registrar of Friendly Societies and asked him if it were a fact that the clause was vague and indefinite. His reply was that it was not, and that he himself personally approved of it. A clause in almost identically the same words was sent to him by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture while he held the position of Secretary to the Treasury, and ho therefore could not understand what objection there could be to it now. As he said at the beginning of his remarks, his reasons for asking the House to approve this clause were, first, that the National Conference of Friendly Societies, which met last week in Birmingham, had unanimously decided that its adoption would be in the interests of friendly societies. He would remind the House that that conference represented a membership of over three and a half millions, with a capital of over twenty-five and a half millions. It was therefore a body which had some right to be considered representative, and which certainly by its action in the past had shown itself anxious to promote the interests of the working men of this country. His second reason for asking the House to carry the Instruction was that it was in the interests of working men, whether they were members of friendly societies or not. It was not desirable that any corporation or company should have power to set up com-

  677
  pulsory thrift, provident, superannuation, or shop clubs, unless they were registered in the way he had suggested, the object of such registration being, of course, to ensure that the men got fair play and substantial benefits. If men were compelled, as a condition of employment, to join such clubs, it was only fair and just that they should be protected in the way ho proposed. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Wallasey Improvement Bill to insert the following Clause—
  No scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this Act shall come into operation until it has been registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Friendly Societies Act."— (Mr. Strachey.)
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURin opposing the Instruction on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, first explained that the Member for Mid Cheshire, who was to have undertaken the duty, was unfortunately prevented by illness from being present that afternoon, and had asked him to state the objections which were entertained to the proposal. This Bill contained a proposal to establish a fund for the purpose of providing the servants of the Council with an allowance in case of death, or with superannuation on retirement, and the principles on which the scheme was based were duly set forth in the Bill, the employees of the Council having to contribute one half of the funds required for the purpose, while the Council provided the other moiety. The promoters of the Bill, in opposing the Instruction, disclaimed altogether any hostility to the Friendly Societies Acts. They recognised, on the contrary, that those Acts were extremely useful within their proper sphere. But they suggested that the Instruction would not be at all appropriate to this Bill, inasmuch as it comprehended not only persons be-longing to the working classes, but also a large number of superior officers under the Council—gentlemen who were receiving salaries of considerable amount, and for whom, therefore, the provisions contemplated by the Friendly Societies Acts would be entirely inadequate. There were no fewer than 107 of the em-
  678
  ployees of the Council who were paid by cheque and whose salaries amounted in the aggregate to £1,400 per annum. If the Bill were brought entirely under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Acts the result would be that no gross sum could be drawn by any servant of the Council exceeding £200, and no annuity exceeding £50 could be granted. The House would see, therefore, that the effect of adopting the Instruction would be to make the Bill altogether inoperative so far as the higher class officials were concerned. The hon. Member for South Somerset himself seemed to be in doubt whether or not that would be the effect of his own clause, He held in his hand the opinion of a Counsel of great eminence, to the effect that the result of the clause would be to entirely subordinate the Bill to the Friendly Societies Acts. The hon. Member had referred to the fact that he had succeeded in securing the insertion of the clause in other Bills, and ho had alluded especially to the Great Eastern Railway Company's Bill. He ventured to point out that there was no analogy whatever between railway companies or kindred industrial organisations and a public authority such as was promoting this Bill. The hon. Member might have succeeded in introducing the Instruction in other Bills, but he was informed that the concession had been obtained in such cases under great pressure, and was only made because the Bills had reached a stage at which, unless the concession was granted, there was a danger of the Bill being lost for a year. Those cases therefore ought not to be accepted as a precedent. The promoters of the Bill had gone as far as they could to meet the hon. Member, who had suggested that his desire was to secure that no scheme should be registered which was not a good scheme and approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The promoters were quite willing to agree to that, and in Clause 52 they had inserted words providing that no scheme under the Act should come into operation unless it was registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  MR. STRACHEY: It gives no discretion to the Registrar. He is bound to register any scheme presented by the Corporation.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR said it was open to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to point out any features which he thought undesirable or inequitable, and he was quite sure that it was the intention of the promoters of the Bill that he should do so. The House was asked to give, a mandatory instruction to the Committee to insert this clause. He ventured to think that it should not do so, but that it should leave the matter to be threshed out before the Committee, which was the proper tribunal to settle matters in which local questions were involved. If the House would agree to send the Bill to the Committee without the proposed Instruction he promised, on behalf of the promoters, that every opportunity should be given for the discussion of the points raised by the hon. Member for South Somerset.
  MR. YOXALLsaid it appeared to him that the arguments of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool were vague and required elucidation. Clause 52, to which he had referred, certainly did not to his mind convey the same meaning as the instruction of the hon. Member for South Somerset. The clause distinctly stated that the Registrar must register if he were satisfied that the scheme was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. He, therefore, would have no choice but to register so long as the terms of the Bill were complied with. But the Instruction meant something different. It meant that the Registrar must be satisfied that in certain respectsthescheme was satisfactory. One of those respects was that the fund should be largely under the management of those who paid into it, and secondly that the men should be granted fair terms on leaving their employment. Those conditions would be secured by insisting on registration as provided for by the Instruction. If they were going to allow local authorities to set up these schemes, it was only right that they should take every possible precaution to secure that the terms were fair to the men concerned. The Instruction would secure the safeguard that the Registrar himself would have to be satisfied that the men were justly dealt with under the scheme. He did not think there was any absolute need for limiting
  680
  the benefits under the scheme. There was no objection to making an exception in the cases of highly-paid servants, and ho therefore hoped that the promoters of the Bill would fall into line with the practice of the House.
  MR. STEVENSONalso hoped that the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool would not press his opposition to the Instruction. A question of far-reaching principle was involved in this matter. The point was, whether in cases in which superannuation or provident funds were established under the authority of Parliament they should, or should not, be under the supervision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. And he was bound to say that in his opinion such supervision was very desirable, seeing that the Registrar had at his command the most skilled actuarial experience that could be obtained, and was able to apply general principles to the various conditions which might arise in connection with great companies and corporations. He thought there must be some mistake in the interpretation which the hon. Member told them had been placed upon the legal bearing of the Instruction. So far as he gathered, the effect of the Instruction would be to secure registration by the Registrar of Friendly Societies merely, and it would not involve registration under the Friendly Societies Act. The clause had become common in the Bills of great railway companies, and ho saw no reason why it should not find a place also in the Bills of corporations. The Wallasley Urban District Council might not be a very great corporation, but there was a great principle involved, and it was desirable that it should be applied to all corporations, whether great or small.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONwho was almost inaudible from the Press gallery, was understood to advocate giving the Committee a free hand in the matter, and to point out that the Local Government Board was always represented before Committees dealing with these Bills. He hoped the Instruction would be rejected.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvilsupported the Instruction, although he

  681
  regretted the proposals contained in the Bill, fearing that the result of their adoption would be to postpone indefinitely that general scheme of old age pensions of which they had heard so much outside the House and seen so little inside it. The whole Bill seemed to have been loosely drawn, and his inclination would be to move its rejection altogether, in order to give the promoters time to reframe it in a more satisfactory manner, it seemed to him that if a, scheme of this kind we; established at all, it should be open to every class of workmen under the Council, and that it should not be in the power of anyone to say that certain well-paid employees should benefit under it, while the less we paid might be excluded from it. Then, again, the scheme proposed to deprive of all benefit from the fund any employee of the Council who resigned his position in order to escape being dismissed for fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct, He respectfully submitted that that was too wide a power to give to any council. If a man were dismissed for misconduct, surely the dismissal was the punishment, and he ought not to be still further penalised by losing any benefit from a fund to which ho had contributed during his service. The hon. Member for South Somerset had suggested that one of his objects was to safeguard the interests of the men by ensuring that the fund was actuarially sound. That, no doubt, was very important. He trusted that the House would agree to the Instruction, and when the Bill came back from the Committee, if it were still defective, they could refuse to pass it into law, and thus give the promoters time to put it in more acceptable form.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland,)thought the House would be disposed to agree with his hon. friend that the Instruction was vague and indefinite. Even the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk disagreed with the hon. Member for South Somerset as to what would be its effect. The hon. Member who moved the Instruction said his point was to have the scheme registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and that was the
  682
  real matter in dispute between him and the promoters of the Bill. There was a clause in the Bill which left it open to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to register the scheme, but the promoters were afraid that, if the Friendly Societies Acts were incorporated in the Bill, certain results would be, produced which were wholly unsuitable to the state of affairs in Wallasey. That would be wholly inapplicable to the case of officials who were drawing high salaries, and who served the borough in important positions. The argument of the promoters of the Bill was that if the Instruction of the hon. Member for South Somerset was accepted it would shut out from the scheme certain benefits 'which the promoters of the Bill intended to confer upon their servants. He did not believe that that was an object which the hon. Member himself would desire to see. He was opposed to the Instruction for the reason that the whole question would be and must be raised before the Committee to which the Bill had already been referred. The Registrar of Friendly Societies had reported against one of the clauses of the Bill—Clause 50—and that Report would be laid before, the Committee. The Committee would have an opportunity of summoning Mr. Braybrooke and hearing his evidence—an opportunity which they had not got in the House; and the Committee would thus be able to insert a clause which would go as far as possible to meet the views of the hon. Member for South Somerset. He might say that the Friendly Societies Act was to be incorporated in certain respects and not in others. That could not be done at the present stage, where they must either incorporate the whole Act or not at all. There is a via media which was the solution of the difficulty, but it could not be taken that afternoon. For that reason he would move, the rejection of the Instruction, and leave it to the Committee, after hearing the evidence of Mr. Braybrooke, to say whether all the sections of the Friendly Societies Act were or were not applicable to the particular circumstances, of this case.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid there was no doubt considerable dissatisfaction had been raised

  683
  throughout the country in regard to these superannuation schemes by local bodies, railway companies, and others. He thought the House was indebted to those who had brought them before the House before being sent to Committee upstairs, and that this should be a lesson to the local bodies to frame their schemes more carefully. In this Bill there wore eleven clauses under the head "Superannuation," and he could see that some of the phraseology was extremely crude and would have to be carefully considered in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Registrar of Friendly Societies had already objected to one of the clauses—Clause 50—but all of them would have to be carefully looked at. He thought that the debate should be adjourned so as to give an opportunity to the promoters of the Bill and hon. Members who objected to some of its provisions for consultation.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR MR. CHARLES McARTHUR said he was authorised by the promoters of the Bill to state that they were willing that the Bill should be so amended that the Registrar of Friendly Societies should have the discretion of saying whether the conditions under the Bill were fairly reasonable.
  MR. FIELDdid not propose to go over the ground already covered by hon. Members who had spoken, but he represented a certain proportion of working men in Ireland, and he agreed with the mover of the motion. All those questions regarding superannuation ought to bo carefully discussed. There were often very curious
  clauses in some of these "omnibus" or so-called Improvement Bills which superseded the ordinary law of the land. As the Gentleman in charge of the Bill was absent, that was a reason why the debate should be adjourned and an opportunity be given for conference. But there were certain penal clauses in regard to dairies and tuberculosis to which he wished to refer.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Instruction moved.
  MR. FIELD MR. FIELD said that the other day, in connection with a Great Eastern Railway Bill, an Instruction proposed to be moved had been withdrawn and the promoters had agreed to have a conference in order that the clause objected to should be amended. He moved the adjournment of the debate to permit of a conference between the promoters and those who took a different view from them in regard to this exceedingly important matter.
  MR. DALYseconded the Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Field.)
  But Mr. SPEAKER being of opinion that the motion was an abuse of the rules of the House, put the Question thereon forthwith to the House.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 82.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Ambrose, Robert

  Colville, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Austin, Sir John

  Crean, Eugene

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Bell, Richard

  Daly, James

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dillon, John

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Black, Alexander William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Blake, Edward

  Duffy, William, J.

  Lambert, George

  Boland, John

  Duncan, James. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Boyle, James

  Ellis, John Edward

  Leamy, Edmund

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Burt, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gilhooly, James

  Lundon, W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Cann, James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir: H.

  Hammond, John

  M'Crae, George

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hardie, J K. (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Fadden, Edward

  M' Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  O'Mara, James

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Murphy, J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'rg'n.Govvr

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Partington, Oswald

  Thompson, E. C.(Monaghan, N.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Priestley, Arthur

  Weir, lames Galloway

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Doherty, William

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Roche, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Field and Captain Donclan.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Flower Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Percy, Earl

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Perk's, Robert William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Groves, James Grimble

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pilkington, Richard

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hain, Edward

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Price, Robert John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Henderson. Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Hartley, George C. T.

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield,Brightsd.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Horner, Frederic William

  Kidley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, Favers.

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Brigg, John

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rigg, Richard

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Round, James

  Caine, William Sproston

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Joicey, Sir James

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albeit

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Knowles, Lees

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Cower, Fredk. N. S.

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

  Crombie, John William

  Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lonsdale John Brownlee

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowther, Rt Hn JW (Cum. Penr.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Tennant, Harold John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hast'gs

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Elliot Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tomkinson, Jame

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.F.H. (Shef'd

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Dept ford

  Walker, Col. William Hail

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wallace, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir Wm. H.

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

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Finch, George H.

  Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Myers, William Henry

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Flanuery, Sir Fortescue

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L

  686

  687

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Strachey and Mr. Chas. M'Arthur.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Bir.

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

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Original Question put.

  AYES.

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Shee, James John

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Austin, Sir John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Perks, Robert William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Haydne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bell, Richard

  Holland, William Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Blake, Edward

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rea, Russell

  Boland, John

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Reddy, M.

  Boyle, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryee, Rt. Hon. James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roche, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leng, Sir John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Colville, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crombie, John William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Daly, James

  M'Cann, James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan Gower

  Dillon, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Tomkinson, James

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duffy, William J.

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Duncan, James H.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wallace, Robert

  Elibank, Master of

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst.)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murphy, J.

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W.R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Finch, George H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Flower, Ernest

  O'Doherty, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Wodehouse, Hn. Arimine(Essex

  Garfit, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goudard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Strachey and Mr. Harry Samuel.

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Mara, James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  The House divided:—Ayes, 18G; Noes, 114. (Division List No. 83.)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Arrol, Sir William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Percy, Earl

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Hain, Edward

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.- Col. Edward

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Henderson, Alexander

  Round, James

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Howard, Capt J. (Kent, Faversh.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col.Thomas Myles

  Bignold, A.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Bill, Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

  Smith, H. C. (Northmb, Tyneside

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kimber, Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Thorburn Sir Walter

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

  Lawrence, William F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Tufnell, Lieut.- Col. Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Cullinan, J.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison

  Williams, Rt Hn. J Powell-(B'rm

  Dimsdale, Sir Jos. Cock field

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

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

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

  Mowbray, Sir Robert G. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles M'Arthur and Colonel Pilkington.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Myers, William Henry

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  MR. HORNER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether it is allowable for a teller to stand at the door and say, "Those who are in favour of friendly societies come to the Aye Lobby."
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, nor do I suppose that such a statement could mislead any hon. Member.
  MR. HORNER: I am quite sure it did.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Wallasey Improvement Bill to insert the following clause—

  No scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this Act shall come into operation until it has been registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Friendly Societies Act.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  690
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. G2 has been complied with, viz: —

  Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill.

  Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill.

  Metropolitan Railway Bill.

  North-Eastern Railway Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read 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 Bill, referred on the

  691
  First Reading thereof. Standing Order No.63 has been complied with, viz.:
  Notting Hill Electric Lighting Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITION [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the Worcester Tramways Bill, reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, the Standing Orders have been complied with.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM WAYS AND STREET W1DENINGS) BILL.
  "To enable the London County Council to construct new tramways and to reconstruct and alter tramways in the county of London; to work tramways by electric traction; and to make new streets and street improvements; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP I).
  Mr. Jeffreys reported from the Committee on Croup I of Railway Bills, That the parties opposing the London. Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill had stated that the evidence of A. Horsburgh Campbell, Surveyor to the Urban District Council of East Ham, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said A. Horsburgh Campbell do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That A. Horsburgh Campbell do attend the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petition from Bowes, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUA TION SCHOOLS).
  Petition from Finchley, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from West Woodburn, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERA NNUATION ACT, 1896.
  Petitions for alteration of Law from Atcham and Milton next Sitting bourne; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Blaenavon; Spennymoor; Bowden Close; Hirwain (two); Byers Green; Bishop Auckland (eight); Luton (two); Whittington Moor; Liverpool (five); Salford (seven); Copford; Halifax (two); Bedfordshire; Leighton Buzzard; Durham; Pendleton (three); South Norwood (two); East Ham; Berwick-on-Tweed; Goole; Newcastle-on-Tync (six); Nottingham (two); Wishaw; Benwell; Camper-down; Willington Quay; Cambusnethan; Overtown; Cardiff' (ten); Chelmsford; St. Marylebone; Galashiels; Rhondda Valley; Ferndale; Hollinwood; Henley-on-Thames; Wolverhampton; Hawk-hurst: Regent's Park; Edinburgh (two); Port Glasgow; Ticehurst; Stockport (two); Burwash Weald; Kirkintilloch (two); Sheffield (six); Jamestown; Birmingham (eight); Croydon; Birkenhead (two); Wigton; Newmilns; Clifton; Oswestry; Norwich, (five); St. Budeaux; Wombwell (three); Oldham; Kingsteignton; Bury (three); West Salford; Hayfield; Woolfold; Clydebank; Kirkwall (two); Crosth-waite; Great Salkeld; Penrith; Weaste; Aston; Pontefract; Keswick: Loft-house: Mirfield (three); Pudsey (three); Stanningley (two); Dewsbury; Llwyny-pia; Leeds (two); Churwell; Horsforth;

  693
  Barnsley; Blodeuyny Duffryn; Aldingbourne; ilfracombe; Wrock wardine Wood; Hornsey Rise; Islington; Ex-mouth (six); Caledonian Road; Dept-ford Park; Patricroft; Walton Park; Greenock (four); Clevedon; Annan; Bradford; Ealing; Kilmarnock; Skegness; Sidmouth; Southend; Lymin-ster; Bristol (three); Hexham; Holly park; Hunwick; Willington; Brecon; Aylestone; Woolwich; Bagalate: Rochdale (three); Heywood; Fording bridge (two); Wakefield (two); Elgin (three); Crowborough; Chelsea; Withington (two); Lancaster (three); Glasgow (eight); Morison; Warmby; Dundee (two); St. Albans; East Dulwich; Corsham (two); Balsall Heath; Sted-ham; West Norwood; Forest Hill (two); Catford; Hastings; Ffynnon Croew; Mold Junction: Rossett; Peterhead; Easebourne; Loughborough Park; Old-land Common; Devizes; Stockbridge; Wandsworth; and Fishbourne; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL AND SALE OF IN TOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHIL DREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dundee; Lochee; Newmilns (two); Kinneil; Borrows to unness; Uphall; Whitburn (two); Kirkintilloch; Galashiels (two); Langton; Hawick; Glasgow (three); Kirkwall; Peebles; Erzie; Bowling; Greenock (six); Aberdeen (two); Rattray; Sandwick (five); and Charlestown; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Return [presented 20th March] to be printed. [No. 89.]
  ARMY (ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Visitors for 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SANDHURST).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Visitors for 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Finding of a Court of Inquiry, held at Barberton on the 25th September. 1900, to investigate the circumstances under which Lieutenant-Colonel B. E. Spragge, D.S.O., 13th Battalion Imperial Yeomanry, and others, became prisoners of war [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENG LAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th March; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 90.]
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th March, Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]
  CHARITY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES)
  Copy presented, of Forty-eighth Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports. Annual Series, Nos. 2,562 to 2,564 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (MAIDSTONE).
  Ordered, That the Copy of the Judges' Report and Minutes of Evidence in the Maidstone Election Trial be printed. [No. 92.]—(Mr. Attorney General.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the

    695
    Colonial Secretary whether he can say when the Papers relating to the recent negotiations in South Africa will be distributed to Members. He will understand our desire to see them.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I quite understand the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, which, I think, is perfectly reasonable. There has been a little delay owing to the necessity for us to telegraph to Lord Kitchener for the full text of his communication to General Botha. That only reached us this morning. The Papers are now in the hands of the printers, and I am told they will be delivered to-morrow, by the time the House meets, I hope.

    TRANSVAAL CIVIL ADMINISTRATION — MR. DOUGLAS FORSTER.
    *SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk. N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Douglas Forster has been appointed to a legal post in the Transvaal by or with the knowledge of Sir Alfred Milner; and, if so, what are his duties and his salary; whether he is the same person who, under the name of Adolphus Ellis, was manager of a theatrical company in the Transvaal; and what are his qualifications for the office which he holds.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, I am prepared to make inquiries of Sir Alfred Milner; but I would ask him to consider whether, in view of the enormous work now imposed on Sir Alfred, he would wish me to inquire in this case unless he has some evidence to show that Sir Alfred is in any way whatever connected with it.
    *SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the appointment has been made by any subordinate officer? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the last session he spoke to me about this very man.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My present information is confined to an answer given by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, which was to the effect, I think, that this gentle-
    696
    man had been employed by Lord Roberts. As far as I understand the matter, the gentleman has no connection whatever with Sir Alfred Milner.

    BOER PRISONERS—MRS. HERTZOG.
    MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire. E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been brought to his knowledge that Albert Hertzog, a child of two years of age, has lately been released from imprisonment in the camp at Port Elizabeth, but that his mother is still a prisoner in the same camp; whether Mrs. Hertzog is the wife of Judge Hertzog, lately a member of the High Court at Bloemfontein; and whether there is any good reason of State why she should not be permitted to join her child.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information, but will inquire.

    BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the British South Africa Company, as required by its charter, accounts for the financial years ending 31st March, 1899, and 1900, and Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1901; and when they will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The accounts for the financial years ended the 31st March, 1899 and 1900, have not yet been received, but will be asked for at once. I have received the Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1901, and they will be laid on the Table.

    RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONCENTRATION OF STORES AT LADYSMITH.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the name of the officer in South Africa who ordered military stores to be concentrated at Ladysmith; whether he was acting on instructions from home or on his own responsibility, and at what date was the concentration of such stores commenced.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No, Sir, I cannot, within the limits of a reply to a question, adjust the responsibility as to the concentration of stores at Ladysmith between officers at home and on the spot.
    MR. LAMBERT: Will this question come within the purview of the inquiry on the war?
    MR. BRODRICK: No terms of reference have yet been suggested, but if an inquiry takes place this point, among many others, might come within it.
    MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.): Did the right hon. Gentleman say "if" or "when" the inquiry takes place?
    MR. BRODRICK: Any inquiry on that subject should be addressed to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury.

    SOLDIERS' WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government scheme of pensions to widows and orphans of those who lose their lives in South Africa will include the widows of those who married off the strength; whether the Government allowances will be granted irrespective of life annuities already given by outside funds, and from what date will the pensions be payable and through what channel will they be remitted.
    MR. BRODRICK: The pensions will only be given to women on the married establishment, including the wives of men of the Reserve, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers married before mobilisation. The pensions will be given irrespective of annuities already given by outside funds. The pensions will be given from the 1st July. The channel of payment has not yet been settled.

    ALLEGED BOER ATROCITY AT TAAIBOSCH.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information showing that, on 19th February, the Boers, after capturing a train at Taai-
    698
    bosch, fired upon the passengers, black and white, killing hundreds as they lay maimed and wounded in the wreckage.
    *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I have no official information of the matter alluded to.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: As this statement has been widely circulated, will the noble Lord take steps to ascertain whether there is any truth in it?
    *LORD STANLEY: If there is any truth in it we shall have official information.

    COMFORTS FOR THE TROOPS.
    MR, MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the telegram from Lord Kitchener asking for comforts for the troops in South Africa, he will arrange that all such comforts shall be sent out free of cost to the sender; and, if so, whether small parcels can also be sent post free.
    *LORD STANLEY: Boxes and parcels, if sent carriage paid to the Embarking Staff Officer, Empress Dock, Southampton, will be forwarded without further charge to the corps or individual to whom they are addressed.
    MR. LAMBERT: May I ask how long these parcels will take to get to the troops, and whether there is any chance of their being blocked at Durban or Cape Town?
    *LORD STANLEY: There are reasons for which I am not responsible which occasionally prevent trains from going up north.
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): Is it not the fact that many of the parcels sent in this way have been five months on the road, whereas those sent through the Post Office have gone through without any delay at all?
    [No answer was given.]
    MR. MANSFIELD: Can small parcels be sent post free?
    *LORD STANLEY: That is a question which would have to be referred to South Africa, as the Colonial Government would be responsible for part of the payment. We should have to get their consent.
    MR. MANSFIELD: Will you endeavour to do so?
    [No answer was given.]
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the approach of winter in South Africa, care will be taken to provide the troops with a sufficient supply of flannel underclothing.
    *LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir. Large supplies of flannel shirts, woollen drawers, and jerseys have been sent out.

    REJECTED MARK IV. BULLETS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that fifty millions Mark IV. bullets have been manufactured, and that four and a half millions have been broken up because they were useless, will he state what has been done with the remaining forty-five and a half millions.
    *LORD STANLEY: In, the first place I am not sure that the hon. Member's figures are correct.
    MR. WEIR: I know they are.
    *LORD STANLEY: These bullets have been made up into cartridges, which are being used for practice purposes.
    MR. WEIR: Are they dum-dum or soft-nosed bullets?
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Have all these bullets that were sent out to South Africa been brought back again?
    *LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
    MR. WEIR: I again ask the noble Lord whether these bullets were soft-nosed or dum-dum bullets.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Where were they made?
    *LORD STANLEY: That does not arise out of the question.

    SOLDIERS' KITS.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that infantry soldiers are only allowed two shirts in their kit, and whether, in view of the complaints made as to the inadequacy of this supply, he purposes making any additions thereto.
    LORD STANLEY: This matter has been very carefully considered, and it has not been held necessary to make any change.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Have any complaints been received from the men or from medical officers?
    LORD STANLEY: Not that I know of.

    YEOMANRY TRAINING.
    MR. STOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that the majority of Yeomanry regiments come out for their annual training in May, whether he can now state when the Army Order will be published giving the requirements of the War Office this year with respect to the period of training, camping out, uniform, and amount of recruiting, in order to allow the necessary arrangements to be made in reasonable time by Colonels and Adjutants of Yeomanry.
    LORD STANLEY: The Army Order is being drafted with all possible speed, but I must ask for a few days law.

    BOY RECRUIT
    COLONEL BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of George Harold Over, recently charged before the Lambeth magistrate I with being an absentee from the East Surrey Militia, when it was elicited that Over was only fourteen years old, though serving as a full-grown private soldier; and whether the conduct of the medical

    701
    officer responsible for having passed him will receive any official notice from the military authorities.
    LORD STANLEY: I have inquired into this case. Over gave his age as seventeen years four months. His height was 5 feet 3¼ inches, chest measurement thirty-two inches, and weight 108 pounds. The medical officer considered his appearance and physical equivalent as being that of a youth of seventeen years and three months. The boy has been ordered to be discharged.

    EBRINGTON BARRACKS, LONDON DERRY.
    THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the cause of the delay in bringing to a completion the enlargement of the Ebrington Barracks in Londonderry, with a view to having that place established as a military headquarters, and if he can say, at the present rate of progress, when the extension will be completed and the headquarters duly established, as so repeatedly promised.
    LORD STANLEY: This is one of the numerous cases of delay caused by the difficulties which meet the War Department in the purchase of land for military purposes. Contracts for all the principal buildings are now in hand, and it is hoped to complete the extension by June, 1902.

    ALDERSHOT ARMY SCHOOL.
    MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the suicide of an Army schoolmaster at Aldershot on 6th March, stated at the inquest to be due to overwork in an understaffed school for excessively long hours, 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., steps may be taken by the War Office to improve the conditions of service in Army schools, so as to attract to Army schools an adequate supply of teachers, and ensure that they shall not be required to work in school for unreasonably long hours.
    LORD STANLEY: An Inter-Departmental Committee has recently been appointed to consider questions dealing with Army schoolmasters, and amongst them the adequacy of the staff.

    DINGWALL BARRACK ACCOMMODA TION.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that although the regimental depot for the 3rd Battalion Seaforth Highlanders, Ross-shire Militia, is at Dingwall, barrack accommodation is not adequate, part only of the staff being quartered at Dingwall and the rest of the staff and men at Fort George; and will he consider the expediency of erecting barracks on one or other of the sites in the immediate vicinity of the town, so that the whole of the staff and men may be accommodated in the county town.
    LORD STANLEY: I have nothing to add to the replies given to similar questions put by the hon. Member on several previous occasions.

    SCOTTISH VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
    MR. NICOL (Argyllshire): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to re-arm the Scotch Volunteer Artillery with the 4·7 guns; and, if so, can he state when this is likely to he carried out.
    LORD STANLEY: Some Scotch Volunteer batteries will be included amongst the Volunteer batteries to be re-armed with the 4·7 guns. I cannot say at present when this will be carried out.

    WRECK OF H.M.S. "SYBILLE."
    *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what officers, besides the captain, and what number of bluejackets and marines respectively belonging to H.M.S. "Sybille" were on duty on shore when that ship was wrecked; and whether the Admiralty have information to the effect that the captain of the ship has since specially complimented the engineer and stokers for saving all the heavy guns under very difficult circumstances when the ship was ashore.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The information received at the Admiralty is to the effect that the captain, two lieutenants, and fifty men were

    703
    anded. Captain Williams, in his evidence before the Court-Martial, remarked that the work in connection with saving the guns reflected great credit on Mr. Dawson, assistant engineer, and his party of stokers. The Court added the following rider to the sentence—

    "The Court are of opinion that every possible effort was made to save the ship after she first struck, and that good order and discipline were maintained under trying and difficult circumstances, and that the salvage operations were conducted in a manner creditable to all the officers and men taking part therein."

    NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.
    MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim. S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the amount spent upon new construction in the nine months ending respectively on the 31st December, 1899, and the 31st December, 1900.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The amount spent upon new construction in the nine months ending the 31st December, 1899, was £4,256,43 and in the nine months ending the 31st December, 1900, £5.182,883.

    CHINA: ANGLO-RUSSIAN DISPUTE AT TIENTSIN.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Barrow ordered the Russians to be opposed by force of arms in regard to the dispute over the railway at Tientsin; and, if so, why such order was not executed.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): So far as I know, all orders issued by General Barrow have been executed; but his action in this instance, as I before said, was strictly limited to the protection of British rights on ground he believed to be property of the railway.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether he has any announcement to make as to the negotiations between Russia and this country.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR. Manchester, E.): No, Sir; I have no statement to make.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand a statement has been made in another place.
    AN IRISH MEMBER: Oh, we shall hear it next week.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it is not the case that a statement has been made by the Secretary of State in another place? I think we ought to know it.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANRORNE,): I have not the least doubt that my noble friend had notice given him, and if the hon. Member will give me notice of a question I shall be happy to answer it.
    MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Surely, Mr Speaker, the House of Commons is entitled to hear some hours afterwards—
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to comment on the answer of the noble Lord. This is not the time for comment.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that no notice could be given because this: question relates to negotiations which were conducted to-day.
    MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given private notice, whether His Majesty's Government has any information as to the despatch or the bringing up of reinforcements of the British troops at Tientsin, and whether additional British troops have reached Tientsin yesterday or to-day, or are expected to arrive there; and whether the Russian general has; issued a statement that no settlement is possible except on the condition of the withdrawal of the British troops.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: If the hon. Member will allow me I shall answer the question. [Opposition cries of "Why?"] The hon. Member put a question as to the British troops in China, and those troops are under my orders. The answer

    705
    to the first question is in the negative. The reply to the second question is that a certain number of white troops have been substituted for certain of the native Indian troops stationed at Tientsin. In reply to the third question, such a statement is reported to have been made, but I am not aware that it is authentic.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Though the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is, of course, entitled to ask for notice of any question put to him, still I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether some Member of the Government could not make a statement as to what is going on in China, seeing that a statement on that subject has been made in another place.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman and the House appear to be under the impression that we are deliberately concealing something from the House which we know to have been given to the other House, I have not the smallest idea of what the communication was that was made to the other House.
    *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Nor have I.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in future he can make arrangements that when important communications on foreign affairs are made in the other House they shall also be made in this House?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are always anxious that this House should have the earliest information on all points, but it would be practically impossible to lay down a rule that a question should never be answered in the House of Lords without previous notice to us here.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I ask whether an arrangement has been arrived at whereby both Russian and British troops are to retire from the disputed territory, that matters are to be referred to Count von Waldersee, and that an apology is to be offered by the party found to be in the wrong?
    *MR. CORRIE GRANT: Was not a full statement made by the Foreign Secretary in the
    706
    other House at half-past four o'clock in answer to Earl Spencer?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is the first intimation I have received of it. I have no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman says it is so it is true, but I am not aware of it.
    MR. O'SHEE: Arising out of the answer of the noble Lord, I should like to ask whether the substitution of British white troops for the native troops who were at Tientsin is due to the fact that friction exists between the French and British troops there?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Cannot the First Lord of the Treasury get the House out of its difficulty by deputing the noble Lord the Under Secretary to go down to the other House and see his chief?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Members are proceeding to debate the whole question. Some other opportunity must be taken for that.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Cannot I have an answer to the specific question I put?
    [No reply was given.]
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Ministers ought to be in this House, and not in the other House.

    RUSSO-CHINESE AGREEMENT ON MANCHURIA.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the assurances given by Count Lamsdorff, on 6th February, 1901, to the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg, regarding the Russo-Chinese Agreement as to Manchuria, referred to an agreement made at Port Arthur between the Russian and Chinese local representatives on 22nd November, 1900, and not the principal agreement made at Peking and received at St. Petersburg after 6th February.
    *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the

    707
    statement made by Count Lamsdorff on the 6th of February, and confirmed by him on the 27th. is applicable to any agreement with regard to Manchuria between the Russian and Chinese Governments.

    THE YANG-TSZE VICEROYS.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the services rendered by the Viceroys Liu Kun-yi and Chang Chih-tung during the Boxer outbreak, in protecting foreigners and preserving order, and of the fact that the said Viceroys have memorialised the Thronofor the introduction of reforms, the Government will press the Court to authorise them to introduce at once reforms within their own provinces, and to guarantee that they shall under no pretext be disturbed for a definite term of years in the carrying out of such reforms.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government recognise the importance of the services rendered by the Viceroys Liu Kun-yi and Chang Chih-tung, and would gladly support them in promoting measures for the development of China and its opening to foreign trade. His Majesty's Government authorised His Majesty's Minister at Peking in October last to make a strong protest against the removal of the Viceroys, and His Majesty's Minister replied that he was satisfied that there was no danger of their removal.

    TREATIES BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY AND CONTINENTAL POWERS.
    MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether those portions of the Anglo-Belgian Treaties of 1831, 1839, and 1870, and of the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878, as have not been expressly repealed by subsequent international instruments, are still held to be binding upon this country.
    *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The treaty of 15th November, 1831. between Great Britain with other Powers and Belgium was superseded by the Treaty of 19th April, 1839, between the same parties, which is still in force. The treaties between Great Britain and Prussia, of 9th August, 1870. and between Great
    708
    Britain with France of 11th August, 1870, were of a temporary character only, and ceased to operate twelve months after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace between France and the North German Confederation. The Anglo-Turkish Convention of 4th January, 1878, is still in force; but the obligations of this country under it were made contingent upon certain reforms in that country.

    EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
    MR. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that under our extradition treaty with the United States a bankrupt debtor may defy his British creditors upon his arrival in the United States, whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will endeavour to get an amended extradition treaty under which absconding bankrupts may be made amenable to our bankruptcy laws.
    MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg, at the same time, to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that when the extradition treaty or treaties which govern the relations of this country and the United States of America were con-eluded no provisions were made for offences under the bankruptcy laws; and whether negotiations have been proceeding with the Government of the United States to remedy this alleged want; if so, whether the matter will be dealt with without any unnecessary delay in the interests of the commercial community, as cases of loss to the business world in both countries are not infrequent.
    *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have endeavoured on more than one occasion of late years to make provision for the mutual surrender in extradition of persons charged with offences against the bankruptcy laws in this country and in the United States. In 1884 the offence was inserted in the draft of a treaty then under negotiation, but it was not accepted by the United States Government. The proposal was again put forward in 1889

    709
    by Her Majesty's Government, but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington reported that offences against bankruptcy laws were excluded from all American extradition treaties because no national bankruptcy law existed, and the law varied in each State of the Union. The matter was accordingly not further pressed by His Majesty's Government.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Senate of the United States has recently ratified an extension of the crimes for which the extradition of criminals can be accorded to Great Britain: and, if so, what crimes may now be added to the list, and, having regard to the policy of the American people to keep their country free from immigration of criminals as evidenced by their legislation, His Majesty's Government will endeavour to make the list of extradition crimes between this country and the United States as complete as between other civilised countries.
    *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington reported on the 13th instant that the Senate of the United States had approved a Supplementary Extradition Treaty signed on the 13th of December last. This Treaty adds to the offences mentioned in the Treaties of 1842 and 1889 the following offences:— Obtaining money, valuable securities, or other property by false pretences; wilful and unlawful destruction or obstruction of railroads which endangers human life; procuring abortion. Steps are being taken for the early ratification of this Supplementary Treaty. The list of extradition offences is practically as complete as that contained in the Treaties of other countries with the United States. Further additions will be considered if necessity should arise, and so far as the laws of both countries may permit.

    HIGHLAND RAILWAYS: MIXED TRAINS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the passenger trains running on the Highland Railway be-
    710
    tween Muir of Ord and Avoch, Ross-shire, are frequently mixed, and are not provided throughout with the continuous brake; and will he take steps to require the Highland Railway Company to conform with the Board of Trade regulations.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Order made by the Board upon the Highland Railway Company under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, authorised the running of a limited number of mixed trains for the conveyance of goods and passengers, subject to specified conditions, of which one is "that the engine tender and passenger vehicles of such mixed trains shall be provided with continuous brakes worked from the engine." In fixing the number of such mixed trains from time to time the Board of Trade, as directed by the Act. have regard to the nature and extent of the traffic on the railway concerned. All the engines and passenger vehicles of such trains are stated to be duly fitted with an automatic-brake, and the, Board's Order appears, therefore, to be fully complied with.
    MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the matter? Or will he allow me to give him my own experience of the line?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already placed myself in communication with the company, with the result stated in my answer. If the hon. Member assures me that the Order is not complied with I will further inquire.
    MR. WEIR: I do.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should like it in writing.
    MR. WEIR: Certainly.

    LIGHT RAILWAYS IN HIGHLAND CROFTING COUNTIES.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that only two light railways have so far been constructed in the six Highland crofting counties under the terms of the Light Railways Act,

    711
    1896, and that many of the proposed light railways, for which the Secretary for Scotland long since granted certificates on the ground that they are necessary means of communication between fishery harbours and the interior of the country, and cannot be constructed without special assistance from the State, have been abandoned by the promoters owing to the terms of the Act; and, in view of the difficulty experienced in obtaining local aid for the construction of such railways in the Highlands, will the Government consider the expediency of so amending the Act as to admit of effect being given to the recommendations of the Secretary for Scotland.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The first paragraph of the hon. Member's question does not correctly state the facts. No light railway has been constructed in the crofting counties under the Act of 1896. Under that Act, however, four light railways have been authorised, while two have been constructed under special Acts. I am not aware what difficulties the hon. Member refers to as having been experienced by promoters in consequence of the terms of the Act, nor am I at present satisfied that there is any necessity for an amendment of the law prescribing the conditions upon which grants are made.

    ARMAGH TO KINGSCOURT RAILWAY.
    MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether ho is aware that the promoters of the railway from Armagh to Kings-court have sold their rights, acquired under an Act passed last year, for making this line to the Great Northern Railway Company; whether he can say how much these rights were sold for; and whether he will take steps to prevent an arrangement between these promoters and the Great Northern Railway which, if carried out, would give a monopoly to the Great Northern Railway Company in the north-east portion of Ireland.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board have been informed on behalf of the promoters of the Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Bill of this session that the working agreement which it is proposed
    712
    to authorise by the Bill—between the Kingscourt, Keady and Armagh Company and the Great Northern Railway Company—will be scheduled to the Bill. I have not seen the proposed agreement, but it will no doubt be laid before the Parliamentary Committee to which the Bill is referred, and the questions raised by the hon. Member are for the consideration of that Committee rather than for the Board of Trade.

    REMOVAL OF BRITISH FACTORIES TO THE UNITED STATES.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish a Return showing the number of manufacturing works removed from this country to the United States, specifying the nature of the manufacture and the causes for the removal.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would not be practicable to obtain accurate information with regard to the subject referred to in the question, and I could not, therefore, undertake to furnish the Return which he desires.

    SHEFFIELD FILE TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of, Trade if he is aware that some firms in Sheffield have been compelled by the Russian duties to erect factories in Russia to sell files and other goods in that empire, and if the Government proposes to take steps to check the migration of factories, capital, machinery, and skilled manufacturers from this country to the United States, Russia, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and other countries.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that it is stated that certain firms at Sheffield are about to erect branch factories or branch establishments in Russia, but I am not prepared to propose any steps in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take some steps in his Budget?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That question had bettor be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that the Returns of evening continuation schools, granted for several years past, fail to show the total amounts spent on evening schools by the various authorities aiding those schools; if he can grant a more complete Return of particulars with regard to evening schools, including those inspected from Whitehall and those inspected from South Kensington; and if, now that the Science and Art Department is merged in the Board of Education, there is any longer any reason for a dual administration of grants to evening schools.
    *THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I am aware that the present Returns are imperfect. They embrace only those schools and parts of schools which are working under the Evening Continuation Schools Code, and omit the schools and parts of schools working under the Directory of the Board of Education. If the hon. Member will confer with rue, I will do my best to add such particulars to the Return as he desires. I am not aware of any reason for the continuance of the dual adminis-stration.

    WINNINGTON PARK SCHOOL COUNTY COUNCIL SCHOLARSHIPS.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the fact that certain children who have obtained county council scholarships at Winning-ton Park School, in Cheshire, and are now attending higher grade schools in Manchester, will under the Minute of 6th April, 1900, be obliged to leave these schools at the end of the current term, having reached the age of fifteen without having worked out their scholarships, and, in view of the fact that these are not isolated cases, His Majesty's Government will consider
    714
    the desirability of modifying the Code by extending the limit of age in the case of children holding county council and other similar scholarships to 6, 17, or. as in the case of Scotland, to 18 years.
    *SIR J. GORST: I am not aware of any school in Manchester which is under the higher elementary schools Minute, and I doubt the existence of any such case of hardship as is referred to in the Question; but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any such case I will inquire into it.

    EDUCATION OF DEAF AND DUMB CATHOLIC CHILDREN.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if the school authority of any district supplies a public elementary school suitable for the elementary education of blind or deaf children for such district under Section 2 of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) 'Act, 1893; has the Roman Catholic parent of such a child the right under that Act to refuse to have his child educated at such a school, and to require the school authority to send it to a certified Roman Catholic institution, and contribute to its maintenance while there.
    *SIR J. GORST: I am reluctant to express any opinion on a general question; but I have been advised that the fact that a school authority has itself snpplied a school for the education of deaf and blind children does not of itself entitle the school authority to insist on the child being sent to that school if the parent of the child selects some other place of instruction. But the selection must be a reasonable one (see Section 10 (2) of the Act); and the question whether the selection was or was not reasonable would have to be decided on the merits of each particular case.

    JUSTICES' OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by existing requirements, he has taken His Majesty's pleasure as to issuing an order under Section 2 of the

    715
    Promissory Oaths Act, 1871, enabling justices to take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath before any two justices in petty sessions assembled.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Jesse COLLINGS,): The King's pleasure has been taken on this matter, and His Majesty has been pleased to appoint that any oaths required to be taken by county justices who were appointed to their offices by virtue of commissions issued in the reign of Her late Majesty may be taken before the justice acting as chairman at the sitting of any petty sessional court of the county for which such commissions were issued respectively.

    DEATH SENTENCES FOR INFAN TICIDE.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in cases of infanticide, the judge has no option but to pass the sentence of death upon the guilty person; and, if this be so, whether he contemplates any change in the law.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS (for Mr. RITCHIE): There is no alternative sentence in cases of child murder. The Secretary of State does not contemplate any alteration of the law.

    TITHE AVERAGES.
    COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst tithe owners as to the system by which the tithe averages are ascertained; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made upon this subject.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): I am aware that some tithe owners complain that under the Act the average price is too low, on the ground that a good deal of the best grain is not sold in the specified markets and therefore does not enter into the Returns. The tithepayers, on the other hand, say that a good deal of inferior corn is similarly not sold in these markets and the average price is thus unduly raised. The whole system
    716
    of commutation was, however, from the first based on the principle of taking into account only the corn actually sold to specified classes of purchasers in particular markets. If my hon. friend can show that the existing markets are not fairly representative, inquiry shall be made—but a revision was only made as recently as 1st January last. If my hon. friend can give specific instances of neglect to make returns of all the corn sold in accordance with the Act, or of failure in any respect to carry out the provisions of the law by any of the returning markets, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

    IMPORTS OF INFERIOR TEA.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the quantities of inferior and unwholesome teas imported into this country which are alleged to contain microbial products dangerous to health; whether the inspectors of the Board have power to seize, analyse, and condemn such teas, and to what extent such powers! are exercised; and if, in the interests of: public health, he is willing to institute an inquiry into the best methods of! checking the sale of such unwholesome; teas by determining some minimum standard of purity, and by securing a proper analysis of such teas before they are blended with other teas.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER-LONG, Bristol, S.): The Local Government Board have no definite information as regards the matters referred to in the first paragraph of the question. Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, the Board may in certain circumstances direct an officer to procure samples of tea for analysis. The result of the analysis is to be communicated to the local authority, and thereupon it becomes the duty of the authority to cause proceedings to be taken just as if they had caused the analysis to be made. The Public Health Acts contain provisions under which articles of food which appear to be unwholesome or unfit for the food of man can be dealt with by officers of local authorities. I am not at present aware of sufficient reason for any such inquiry as that suggested.

    VACCINATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
    MR GODDARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether officials appointed by a board of guardians are or are not under the immediate control of the board of guardians appointing them; and, whether the superintendent of a home under the board of guardians can cause the children in such home to be vaccinated independently of the wishes of the parents or the guardians.
    *MR. WALTER LONG: The duties of the more important officers of a board of guardians are prescribed by statute and by regulations made by the Local Government Board or their predecessors. The regulations generally contain a provision to the effect that the officer is to obey the lawful orders and directions of the guardians applicable to his office. The view of the Board is that under ordinary circumstances a child in an institution such as that referred to in the question should not bevaccinated if the parent or—in the case of an orphan or deserted child—the guardians object.

    POOR LAW MEDICAL RELIEF AND THE FRANCHISE.
    MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire. W. R. Holmfirth): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether be is aware that electors are disfranchised if they or members of their family dependent upon them are treated as patients in a workhouse hospital, even though the guardians of the pool' receive full payment from the elector or his friends for the cost of treatment: and that the same disfranchisement takes place if owing to lack of hospital accommodation, the municipality arranges with the guardians for infectious cases for which the municipality is responsible to be treated at the workhouse hospital, and the municipality pays to the guardians the full cost of such treatment: and whether the Government will take steps to prevent such disfranchisement taking place
    *MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware that the allegation contained in the first paragraph of the question is correct. I have no authority to deter-
    718
    mine whether an elector is disfranchised under any of the conditions referred to in the question, or to take any steps in the matter; but, so far as I am able to form an opinion, a person would not be disfranchised in the circumstances stated.

    THE WORKHOUSE DIETARY ORDER.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the new dietary order which it is intended to put in force in all the workhouses of the country on the 25th of March next is causing dissatisfaction among poor law authorities, both on the ground of the expense which will be involved and of the unpreparedness of the officials: whether he is aware that resolutions have been passed by the majority of boards asking for a suspension of the operation of the Order until the 29th of September next, and that this request has been unanimously endorsed by the Poor Law Unions Associaton in meeting assembled and by deputation to the Local Government Board; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, his Department can see its way to comply with the wishes of poor law authorities and their officials in the matter.
    *MR. WALTER LONG: As a result of the deputation referred to by the hon. Member, a conference has taken place between officers of the Board and representatives of the Poor Law Unions Association, when the points which the Association wished to raise in connection with the Order were discussed. After the discussion there did not appear to be anything to necessitate the postponement of the date on which the Order is to come into operation, and the Board informed the Association on the 13th instant that they had decided not to make any postponement. The explanations which the Board have given with regard to the Order have, I think, largely removed any dissatisfaction on the subject. I may add that the Order was issued in October last, so that there has been ample time to prepare for its taking effect.

    COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
    MR. JOHN HUTTON (Yorkshire, N.R.,Richmond): I beg to ask the Presi-

    719
    dent of the Local Government Board whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill this session to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill, 1899.
    *MR. WALTER LONG: Boards of guardians can give effect to the majority of the recommendations of the Select Committee without legislation. As regards others, legislation would be required if fresh powers and duties were to be assigned to county councils, and I do not propose to introduce legislation on this subject at the present time. My right hon. friend and predecessor, in a circular of the 4th August last, called the attention of guardians to their powers in relation to the matters referred to by the Committee, and I have since instructed the inspectors of the Board to report the result of the consideration of the circular by guardians. In particular, whenever the opportunity has occurred I have pressed on the guardians the desirability of taking children out of the workhouse.

    FOOD PRESERVATIVES—BORAX.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that Professor Thorpe stated in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Arsenic in Beer and Food that he had found no borax of commerce free from arsenic, the Departmental Committee now engaged in setting up standards of purity under Clause 4 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1900, will take cognisance of this evidence, and prohibit the use of borax as a preservative.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Departmental Committee appointed by my predecessor to inquire into the use of preservatives. That Committee has not at present reported, and it will be competent for them to take into consideration any evidence they may think fit. If it should appear that mixing borax with any article of food renders it injurious to health, a person so mixing it with intent that the article may be sold in that state would be liable to proceedings under the existing law.
    MR. JOYCE: Is Dr. Thorpe the principal chemist in the Government
    720
    Analytical Department at Somerset House?
    MR. WALTER LONG: He is, of course.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
    MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any, and if so what, test of knowledge of thediseases of animals is required from candidates before being appointed medical officers of health.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No test of the kind referred to is required by law.
    MR. FIELD: Will you suggest that such a test be required in the future?
    MR. WALTER LONG: There is no legal enactment under which it can be required.
    MR. FIELD: Is it not possible to amend the law?
    [No answer was given.]

    INSPECTORS OF NUISANCES.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board makes the appointment of a candidate as inspector of nuisances, which officer has among other duties to seize unsound meat, conditional on his possessing satisfactory knowledge of the diseases of animals likely to render the flesh unfit for human food, as well as a satisfactory knowledge of the characters of sound and unsound meat; and, if such a standard of knowledge is obligatory, when it was adopted.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis recommended that meat inspectors should possess certain qualifications. The Local Government Board have drawn the attention of councils of boroughs and other urban districts to this subject with a view to their giving effect to the recommendations as far as practicable.
    MR. FIELD: How far have the recommendations been carried out?
    MR. LONG: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. A great many appointments have been made.

    TELEPHONE DISTRICTS.
    MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, since the agreement with the National Telephone Company in 1896. any telephone district included in that agreement has been transferred from one telephone exchange area to another.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): In the interval between the execution of the agreement with the National Telephone Company in 1896 and the appointment of the Select Committee on Telephones in 1898 the transfer of a district from one telephone area to another was authorised in several cases, particulars of which will be found in Appendix No. 35 to the Report of the Select Committee. Certain of these alterations were embodied in a formal deed dated the 15th February, 1899, but no other transfer has been authorised since the appointment of the Select Committee.
    MR. M'KENNA: Has any transfer been applied for except the one I made?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know.

    PROMOTION IN THE MANCHESTER POST OFFICE.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the case of a telegraphist in the Manchester Post Office who, on the 8th September. 1900, was promoted to the position of clerk, filling a vacancy which had occurred in December. 1899, in which case the back pay then given to the telegraphist has had to be refunded, the promotion having since been dated from the 1st September, 1900; whether the Postmaster General will investigate the principle governing promotions, with a view towards filling vacancies immediately they occur, and date the next officer's promotion from that period; and if he will reconsider
    722
    the decision as to refunding the back pay referred to.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the case referred to, two sorting clerks and telegraphists were promoted to be clerks, and it was intended that the date of promotion should be the 1st September, 1900, that being the date on which the promotions were approved by the Postmaster General; but through an error the 16th December, 1899, was inserted in the papers. When this error was discovered steps were taken to correct it, the officers who had been overpaid £2 17s. each were called on to refund the overpayment; and the Postmaster General regrets that he cannot relieve them of this payment. If these officers had been allowed to benefit by the error committed. they would have ranked above an officer who was properly their senior. The general rule is that promotions shall take effect from the date on which they receive the Postmaster General's approval. Every effort is made to fill vacancies as soon as possible; but the Postmaster General sees no reason for altering the general rule that a promotion should date from the day on which it is made.

    LAND COMMISSION (IRELAND) CLERKS.
    MR. YONALL:1 beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in I view of the fact that three senior assistant clerks, abstracter class, employed in the offices of the Land Commission (Ireland), have for the past two years received an annual increment of £5, which they are still receiving. he can say whether there is any reason why the remainder of the class should not be similarly treated in the matter of increment.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The case of the three clerks referred to is not identical with the remainder of the abstracter class, and I do not think that the treatment in their case can be applied to the rest of the class. But in the case of any abstracter recommended by the head of his department for special service, there is power to advance him in his scale, though without alteration of his rate of increment.

    CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is still the practice of the Treasury, under Section 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, to permit, upon promotion to the establishment, the counting of all continuous temporary service rendered prior to establishment, as if the entire service of a similar character had been rendered upon the establishment.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There has been no change in the practice of the Treasury. By the provisions of Section 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 the power of the Treasury to reckon temporary service for pension is expressly limited to cases in which they consider that the special circumstances warrant such a course.

    CARLOWAY AND STORNOWAY ROAD, ISLAND OF LEWIS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have yet made provision for the construction of the middle section of the road between Carloway and Storno-way, Island of Lewis; and, if not, will he state what steps it is proposed to take to complete this road.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): No provision has been made for the purpose referred to in the question of the hon. Member, and no steps are in contemplation.

    NAVIGATION CLASSES IN SCOTTISH EVENING SCHOOLS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many scholars in the whole of Scotland attended classes in navigation at evening schools during the year ending 31st December, 1900: and will he state how many of these scholars attended navigation classes in the six Highland crofting counties.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am unable to give the information desired for the year ended 31st December, 1900. because that date is in the middle of the winter course, and does not represent the natural close of a session of evening
    724
    school work. The Returns for the evening school session of 1899–1900 show that navigation was taught in seventeen departments in the following Highland crofting counties: Argyll, 7; Inverness, 3; Boss, I; Shetland, 6. The total number of scholars taught in these seventeen departments was 321.

    GREENOCK SCHOOL BOARD PRIZES.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Greenock School Board provides prizes out of the public rate for the children attending the schools under their charge, which are really denominational in the sense that the Presbyterian religion is taught; and, whether, in these circumstances, he is prepared to instruct that a share of the prizes purchased by the Board be given all Government-inspected schools in proportion to the average attendance.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am aware that the School Board of Greenock, like many school boards in Scotland, provide prizes for children in attendance at the public schools out of the school fund. I know of nothing in the Education Acts which would warrant the payment from the school fund of prizes to children in attendance at other than public schools.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: But is this rule fair to the Catholic children?
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think so. It would be an entirely new departure to take the rates for the purpose suggested.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: But is not the Greenock School practically a denominational school?
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: That is a matter of argument.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Ought not the rule to be abandoned as unjust to Catholic children, and the prizes provided by Private people?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now arguing the question.

    INVER—DISFRANCHISEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDERS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that between sixty and seventy householders in Inver, Ross-shire, representing almost the entire village, are disfranchised in consequence of the landlord having failed to pay the rates, in accordance with an arrangement which these tenants show he entered into with them some time back; and, in view of the fact that as matters now stand the rates fall more heavily on the rest of the district, will the Secretary for Scotland say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have made inquiry through the Local Government Board, and am informed that that Department has no knowledge of any such arrangement as is alleged in the hon. Member's question. In any view such an arrangement would be a matter of private paction between the landlord and tenant. So far as the rate collector is concerned he is bound to take the valuation roll as it stands and there is no room for any action by the Secretary for Scotland in the matter.

    MAIDSTONE ELECTION PETITION.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General when the shorthand writer's notes of evidence respecting the recent election petition at Maidstone will be laid upon the Table and distributed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The notes were laid on the Table some days ago. If there is any general desire that they shall be printed, I will give the necessary instructions.

    SNEEM PIER.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board and the shipping companies interested took steps to procure the erection of a goods store on Sneem Pier, county Kerry, but were prevented from
    726
    carrying out this work by the action of the landlord; can he say at what date this opposition was offered; and will the Irish Government take the necessary steps to secure the erection of the store, and thus meet a want whereby inconvenience and loss of trade have been occasioned.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Congested Districts Board was willing to erect an open shed on the quay at Sneem, as an alternative for a goods store on adjoining land, which the owners, so recently as September last, stated it was their intention to build. I cannot say if the shipping companies proposed to erect a store on the pier. I am making further inquiries.

    DERRIQUIN CASTLE SHOOTING PARTY.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a shooting party was held at Derriquin Castle, county Kerry, in which some officers of the Royal Irish Constabularly took part, on 20th November, 1900, and that members of the party fired from the public road; and will an investigation into the circumstances of the case be held.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The shot was not fired by either of the two police officers present on the occasion, but by a Swiss gentleman who acted in ignorance of the law. No damage was done, and it is not proposed to take any action in the matter.

    IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANT COUNTY SURVEYORS.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has removed or superseded the officers of the Local Government Board who tried to oblige county councils in Ireland to pay assistant county surveyors in some cases eighty per cent. increased salaries; whether he is aware that the interference of the Local Government Board in the matter prevented the officials transferred to the county councils from being reasonably dealt with, and has caused friction

    727
    and expense; and, if he will prevent such action on behalf of the Local Government Board in future, or if he will appoint some other person to look after the affairs of the Department.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Court of Appeal did not question the power of the Board to fix these salaries, but traversed the method adopted in fixing them. I would remind the hon. Member that this question can be discussed on the Appropriation Bill.

    IRISH POOR LAW MEDICAL OFFICERS —HOLIDAYS.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has called for the resignation of those officials connected with the Local Government Board who have been compelling boards of guardians in Ireland to give compulsorily four weeks holidays to medical officers previous to the decision of the Court of King's Bench in this matter; and, whether, seeing that this order cost the boards of guardians about £10,000, he will direct a refund.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to both paragraphs is in the negative.

    TRAINED NURSES IN WORKHOUSE HOSPITALS.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the difficulty that boards of guardians in Ireland have in obtaining trained nurses according to the standard laid down by the Local Government Board, and seeing that in the county infirmaries there are, throughout Ireland, a number of experienced nurses who have acquired their training in these institutions, he will permit nurses so trained to compete for the position of trained nurse in workhouse hospitals and other hospitals in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: As at present advised, the Local Government Board is not prepared to relax its standard for trained nurses. I am glad to say that in ninety-six workhouses the guardians have already appointed nurses with the qualifications prescribed.

    CARRICKMACROSS WORKHOUSE DIETARY.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board obliged the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians to increase the cost of the dietary of the inmates of the workhouse by 30 per cent.; and that when the visiting committee interviewed the inmates on the change of dietary the inmates preferred the old to the new dietary, though the latter will cost the ratepayers about £300 per annum of an increase upon the rates; and whether he will permit the medical officer and the guardians to vary the dietary in Carrickmacross workhouse.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The fact is not correctly stated in the first part of the question. The Board has not laid down any fixed rule as regards the dietary of workhouse inmates beyond the minimum scale prescribed in 1849. The Board suggested a revision of the existing dietaries on more varied lines, so far as children and the infirm and lunatic classes were concerned. The clerk of the union states that the cost of the dietary of the inmates has increased by 14 per cent., and that the total cost to the ratepayers will be less than one half of the sum stated in the question. It is open to the guardians and the medical officer to vary the dietary of any class of inmates, provided the scale is not below that approved by the Local Government Board.

    DROMARD PETTY SESSIONS — DIS TRICT INSPECTOR CLAYTON.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL (Armagh, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to-the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that District Inspector Clayton, of Banbridge, does not attend Dromard petty sessions in accordance with Code Section 1356; and how many times he has attended these petty sessions during the last five years, and how does he account for his neglect of duty to the-Inspector General in his quarterly Return No. 8.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There has been no neglect of duty on the part of this officer, as suggested. The regulations

    729
    require him to attend petty sessions when not otherwise engaged on more urgent duty. He has attended these petty sessions on seventeen occasions in the past five years. His absence from the sessions has been satisfactorily accounted for.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Is it the fact that this officer spends the greater part of his time playing hockey, and other games?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    CASTLEBAR DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
    DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board auditor has certified that the sum of £1,359 17s. 1d. is due by the Treasury to the committee of management of the Castle-bar District Lunatic Asylum for the maintenance of patients for the quarter ending 31st March, 1899, being the contribution of the Treasury as the rate-in-aid; and if ho can explain why the Treasury has not paid this amount.
    The following question also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that it has been certified that the Carlow District Asylum is entitled to payment of £884 11s. 4d.—namely, Carlow county £365 9s. 10d, Kildare county £519 1s. 6d., rate-in-aid for the three months ending 31st March, 1899, and as this debt has not been paid, whether he will arrange to have the liability discharged within the next four weeks.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The subject matter of these questions has been already dealt with by me in answer to similar questions concerning other asylums, and I have nothing to add to my replies to these questions. A better opportunity for discussing the matter will arise cither on the Appropriation Bill or the Estimates.

    KILMALLOCK DISTRICT COUNCIL— LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
    MR. LUYNDON (Limerick, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
    730
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inquiry of the Local Government Board inspector in regard to the present scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages under the Labourers Acts in the Kilmallock District Council, in the county of Limerick, was held as far back as June in 1900, but that the Provisional Order has not yet been placed in the hands of the Kilmallock councillors; can he state the cause of the delay; and, will he give instructions to expedite the proceedings, so that the district councillors may be enabled to provide the cottages and plots early enough for the labourers to cultivate the ground.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Provisional Order was made by the Local Government Board on the 28th ultimo, and copies have been sent to the Rural District Council.

    RENTS IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution from the Kilmallock (county Limerick) District Council, passed at their sitting in Limerick, protesting against the decision of the Chief Land Commissioners in raising the rents, over the heads of the sub-Commissioners, in forty per cent. of the cases tried before them, and expressing their conviction that until a compulsory Land Purchase Bill is passed there will be neither peace nor contentment in Ireland: and whether he is prepared to introduce any such legislation as will give expression to these views.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is yes, and to the second paragraph no.

    SHILLELAGH UNION INQUIRY.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow. W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the guardians of the Shillelagh Union have protested against the appointment of Dr. Edgar Flinn to hold an inquiry into certain charges made against Dr. Bolster, medical officer of the Tinahely dispensary district, and whether he will advise the Local Government

    731
    Board to have the inquiry conducted by some other inspector.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Dr. Flinn is the Medical Inspector of the district in question, and, since he has done nothing to forfeit the confidence of the Local Government Board, I see no reason for relieving him from the duty of holding the inquiry into the charges against Dr. Booster.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is it not the fact that he has lost the confidence of the Irish public?
    [No answer was returned.]

    ELECTRO-CULTURE OF POTATOES IN IRELAND.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he state what was the result of the investigation by Mr. David MacLurg, representative of Processor Thomas Carroll, official of the Agricultural Board, into the experiment of Mr. Martin O Sullivan, of Athea, county Limerck, in electrocuture of potatoes, ho d on the 2nd and 3rd October last; and whether, seeing that Mr David MacLurg on the 4th October last photographed two heaps of potatoes, one four times the weight of the other representing the relatve produce in large or table potatoes, of the experimented and non-experimented plots selected by Professor Carroll on the 24th September last, will he state whether, if the experiment has been a success, the Agricultural Board Wllact on it in the public interest.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture is not satisfied that the experiment referred to is a success, and is not in a position to act on it in the public interest. The Department, however, proposes to cause a test to be made this season under its own supervision with a view to settle the question.

    SALES OF ESTATES IN IRELAND.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he able to state what is the number of estates coming within the provisions of the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, and listed for sale in the years; 1899 and 1900, in
    732
    which insurance companies are petitioners; also what number of these have been sold under the 40th Section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and in how many cases has the sale been frustrated or fallen through, and why.
    MR. WYNDHAMreplied that he was not prepared to grant a Return.

    LOUGH NEAGH DRAINAGE.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Upper and Lower Bann and Lough Neagh Drainage Works have entirely failed to preserve the waters of Lough Neagh at their proper summer and winter levels; whether, seeing that the expenses of the Drainage Trustees amounts to £1,100 per annum, while the revenues therefrom are only £70 per annum, he will consicer the advisability of giving a controlling power in the matter to the councils around Lough Neagh; and whether, seeing that the tenants of the flooded lands have already paid £155,000 towards these unsuccessful drainage works, he will promptly introduce a measure to provide for the effective drainage of the area round Lough Neagh, the cost of such scheme to be defrayed by Parliament.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In answer to the-first and third paragraphs. I must refer to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for East Cavan on the 7th inst. The proposal in the second paragraph is one that would require consideration: under Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1898, the county councils are empowered to take over the business of a drainage board, with its consent. under a Provisional Order of the Local. Government Board.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
    MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh. S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a labourer living in a cottage not under a Labourers' Cottage Scheme, but which is the property of the farmer on whose land it is built, can claim as a matter of right the usual allowance of land under the Labourers Acts.
    *See preceding volume of Debates, page 820.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to this question is in the negative.

    IRISH WORKHOUSE NURSES.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet obtained a Report from the Local Government Board on the subject of making grants to assist boards of guardians to have young girls trained as properly qualified nurses, so as to avoid the expense of complying with the Board's new rule to employ as nurses, assistant or otherwise, only those who have been trained in a recognised hospital.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I find that the Local Government Board has no funds for this purpose, and that legislation would be needed. I am looking further into the matter.

    MULLINGAR DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report of the last meeting of the Joint Committee of Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum, at which it was stated that the estimate for maintenance of this asylum had advanced from £14,362 in 1897 to £33,076 in 1901; whether complaint was made that no inspector of asylums attends the meetings of the board, although a report has just been made by Sir George P. O' Farrell, lunacy inspector, practically exonerating the officials from the charges made by the committee that the management of the asylum was conducted on extravagant lines, and this without hearing evidence on behalf of the committee; and whether he will direct a departmental inquiry into the increase of expenditure, with a view to giving the committee the right to press their charges to a definite conclusion.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The sum of £33,076, the estimated expenditure for 1901–2, will be reduced by the capitation grant, amounting to about £8,000. Moreover, the number of patients in the asylum has increased in the same period from 712 to 832; there has been an
    734
    increase in the amount required for repayment for asylum loans, and for the purchase of provisions. The inspectors attend such meetings when requested to do so, but no request was made in this case. Any inquiry of the nature suggested in the third paragraph should properly be held by the committee of management, but if the committee applies for an inquiry by the inspectors the matter will be considered.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the committee of inquiry has already sat, and that its report was upset by the subsequent report of Sir George O'Parrell?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The inspectors have nothing to do with the cost of maintenance. They are called on to report on the well-being and treatment of the inmates.

    IRISH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL AUDITS.
    MR. KENNEDY (Westmeath, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if ho can state by what authority rural district councils are now charged fees for audit by the Local Government Board of accounts which were audited free of charge previous to their transfer by statute from the boards of guardians; and whether the only business in respect of which those councils now receive or pay money is that so transferred.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The authority is contained in Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Application of Enactments Order, 1898. The business transferred is that of boards of guardians acting as rural sanitary authorities. Prior to the transfer no charge was made for the audit of the accounts of poor law guardians. The rural sanitary authorities thus escaped, unlike the urban sanitary authorities, who were assessed annually as at present.
    MR. KENNEDY: Is this a new tax imposed on Ireland by the Local Government Act, 1898?
    MR. WYNDHAMreplied in the affirmative.

    WESTPORT PETTY SESSIONS-CASE OF WIDOW SALMON.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL (Mayo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to certain statements made by Mr. Starkie, R.M., at the Westport petty sessions recently, to the effect that a man named Scahill, who was three times convicted for assaulting Mrs. Salmon, was convicted and sent to prison on evidence concocted for that purpose; and to the statement of Mr. Starkie that, although he was one of the magistrates who convicted him, he afterwards heard from high authority that there was not a word of truth in the whole case, and that he was aware that a witness could be produced that could have sworn that Scahill had not said a word on the occasion; and whether inquiry will be made as to who is the high authority to whom Mr. Starkie referred, and into all the circum-stances connected with the dispute between the widow Salmon and the man who got her holding.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to this question. The statement in the first paragraph is substantially accurate, save that Scahill does not appear to have been convicted of assault on Mrs. Salmon, but was sent to prison in default of finding sureties to keep the peace for the alleged use of threatening language towards her, and that Mr. Starkie used the words "good authority," not "high authority." It is to be regretted that Mr. Starkie used this language upon hearsay in reference to a previous decision which, based as it was on the evidence at the time before the court, he considered satisfactory. Under these cir-cumstances it is not proposed to make the inquiry suggested.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: May I ask whether in future resident magistrates cannot find better employment than in trying to whitewash land grabbers?
    CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): How many times has this widow been sent to gaol for attending to her holding?

    PORTADOWN DISTURBANCES.
    MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether on the 19th August last the Roman Catholic Young Men's Association of Portadown communicated with the local police authorities with a view to their affording protection to a body of Roman Catholics who proposed to go on an excursion to Bundoran on the 26th of that month; whether a similar communication was made on the '25th August, 1900, to the Under Secretary, Dublin Castle; whether any special protection was in consequence accorded to the excursionists referred to on the last-mentioned date, when several of them were brutally assaulted and injured; whether on the 22nd September, 1900, the Roman Catholic Association wrote complaining of the failure to give the protection called for, and making certain suggestions for the future preservation of the peace in Portadown; whether any answer, other than a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the communication of the 22nd September, has ever been given to the association; will he explain why the last two appeals to the Castle from the association, including a letter to the right hon. Gentleman himself, have been left without any answer; and whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. Special precautions were taken to afford protection to the excursion on the 26th August; it is much to be regretted, however, that an attack was made on the party when it was leaving in the morning which resulted in injuries to several persons, and also when the party was returning at night. Many persons were prosecuted for participating in the disturbances; seven were imprisoned for terms varying from fourteen days to two months, two were bound to the peace, and thirty-five were fined. The letter of 22nd September was duly acknowledged, and towards the end of January I myself received a similar communication from the association. These communications received my own personal attention, and careful inquiries satisfied me that everything was being done to preserve the peace, and that

    737
    there was no foundation whatever for the charges of partiality preferred by the association against the resident magistrate and district inspector. I do not propose to lay the correspondence on the Table.
    MR. CLANCY: As a matter of fact, was there any increase of the police force on that occasion?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that that quite arises out of the question. I have admitted that the force was inadequate, and have stated that steps are being taken to secure adequate protection in the future.
    MR. CLANCY: But the right hon. Gentleman said special protection. I want to know if a single extra man was put on.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question does not ask how many extra men were put on.
    MR. CLANCY: I ask that now.
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he took no notice of two letters addressed to him?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have said that their receipt was acknowledged and that I gave my personal attention to the matter.

    BELFAST VALUATION.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a Return of the old valuations and the new valuations recently made in Belfast by the Irish Valuation Commission.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are 85,000 rateable hereditaments in Belfast, and I do not think that the value of the Return would be sufficient to justify the labour and expense which it would involve.
    MR. FIELD: Then the reply is in the negative?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, on the grounds I have stated.

    IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Irish Lights Commissioners are allowed £400 per annum for refreshments; whether such allowance is usual in public boards: and whether it will be continued to the Irish Lights Board.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I am aware that an annual sum of £400 has for many years been allowed by the Board of Trade to meet the housekeeping expenses of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. This amount covers the costs incurred by the Committee on the annual tour of inspection round the coast of Ireland, as well as the weekly luncheon on Board days. Having regard to the fact that the Commissioners receive no personal remuneration or allowance, I see no reason for refusing my sanction to this expenditure.
    An HON. MEMBER: Have the Government any intention to give representation on this Board to the various harbour authorities in Ireland who desire it?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question about refreshments.
    MR. FIELD: How long does the annual tour round the coast of Ireland take?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask for notice.

    MAIDEN ROCKS, LARNE.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the reason for the delay in not carrying out the improvements and alterations at the Maiden Rocks, near Larne, by the Irish Lights Commissioners, as arranged with the Trinity Board, and with the Belfast applications to have the lights and buoys at these rocks completed.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the improvements as to the light and buoys at the Maiden Rocks have been delayed owing to the need of making certain experiments. It is not anticipated that there will be any

    739
    further delay as regards the light. As regards the buoys, the Commissioners hope to place a buoy at the Highland Rock as an experiment in June next; while a decision as to the buoy at the Hunters Rock has been deferred pending the consideration of a suggestion made by the Advisory Committee on New Lighthouse Works, that a lighted buoy should be placed there.

    LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY WEXFORD.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the House will be informed as to the intentions of the Government with regard to land purchase in Ireland; and whether he will consider the advisability of making a statement upon the subject at an early date, seeing that land purchase in County Wexford is now stopped.
    MR. FERENCH (Wexford, S.): At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with regard to the sales that are pending in County Wexford under the Land Purchase Acts where agreements have been lodged with the Commissioners, where the security has been or will be approved of by the inspector of the Land Commission, the Government will direct the Treasury to supply whatever money may be necessary to carry out these sales; and, if not, can he say at what time funds are likely to be forthcoming to enable the sale of land in Wexford to proceed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The position of Wexford in regard to land purchase is undoubtedly a serious one, and is engaging the attention of the Government. I cannot at present make any announcement on the subject, but if the hon. Gentleman will put the question after Easter I may be in a position to give a definite reply.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state what steps he proposes to take to inquire into the question of the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no communication to make to the House.

    IRISH BOARD OF WORKS—NEW CHAIRMAN.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to say who is the new chairman of the Board of Works, what are his qualifications for the office, and will he state what is the term of his engagement and what is his salary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The name of the new chairman of the Irish Board of Works is Mr. G. C. Holmes, who, until recently, was secretary to the Institute of Naval Architects and formerly with the London and North-Western Railway Company. Mr. Holmes is an acknowledged authority on the works of engineering. His salary will be £1,500 a year, and his engagement is that of a Civil servant under the ordinary conditions.
    MR. CLANCY: Has he ever been in Ireland yet?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know; but he is there now.
    MR. CLANCY: Is it not the fact that of the three members of the Board two are Englishmen?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, this will be an exception to the rule.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand this gentleman is not an Irishman?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He is an Irishman.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Does he know anything of the policy pursued I by this Board for the last five years? Is it intended he shall carry on that policy? Was any effort made to secure a chairman well acquainted with the policy?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, it is proposed to carry on the policy of the Board in connection with public works. In our opinion Mr. Holmes was the best man for the place.

    ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now make any definite statement as to the Committee to be appointed on the subject of the Sovereign's Accession Oath.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that a motion is to be made to-day in another place for the appointment of this Joint Committee.

    ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE POPE OF THE KING'S ACCESSION.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state whether His Majesty's Government propose to send a special ambassador to the Pope to make the ceremonial announcement as to His Majesty's accession to the Throne in the same manner as is being done in the case of other European Sovereigns.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not proposed to send a special ambassador; but the death of Her late Majesty and the King's accession will be notified by letter.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Is it not the case that a special ambassador was sent to the Pope at the beginning of the last three reigns?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that. I have not got the information.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if at the commencement of the late reign the Pope was not a temporal sovereign, and that since then he has lost the I States of the Church?
    [No answer was given.]

    PRIVATE MEMBERS' RIGHTS.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can hold out any hope that private I Members who have secured favourable places in the ballot for motions on Tuesdays will get any opportunity of discussing the subjects of which they have given Notice of Motion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That must depend on the general course of business.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: What about next Tuesday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That day we take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

    SUPPLY PROCEDURE—PROPOSED COMMITTEE.
    COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to appoint a Committee to consider, with a wide reference, the subject of the procedure of the House with regard to Supply, and especially the allocation of the days for the discussion of particular Estimates.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have more than once expressed to the House my desire to see a small Committee appointed which should advise the Government and the House as to the distribution of the allotted days between the various heads of Supply. My idea of such a Committee would be that it should consist of seven persons, only two being members of the front benches and five independent Members of the House, with a majority of four to three on the side of the Opposition. If the House consented to the appointment of such a Committee, at any rate as an experiment, we should see how it would work. The Committee will only advise as to the allocation of time as among the twenty-three allotted days. It would not be the same Committee as we should have to appoint wore it thought desirable to look into the general question of how Supply should be dealt with in the House.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Committee should be appointed at the beginning of each session and give advice for that particular session, or that the Committee shall provide the allocation for all the sessions of that Parliament?
    MR. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The plan that has always commended itself to my mind is that this Committee should be appointed each session, and

    743
    should advise, so to speak, week by week as to how the time should be used.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman does not say whether he is going to adopt that plan.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not like to adopt it without consultation, but if that should be the general view of the House, I should be very glad to put the proposal on the Paper. I shall be glad to consult the right hon. Gentleman before doing so.
    MR. LAMBERT: Will the Committee have the power to say whether the number of days devoted to Supply is sufficient or not?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. That would have to be done by a quite different body, if it were referred to a Committee at all. If the House thought it was incapable of coming to a decision, and wished the advice of a Committee, it would be a different kind of Committee to the one which would carry out the function I have just indicated.

ISOLATION HOSPITALS.
Bill to amend The Isolation Hospitals Act, 1893, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Grant Lawson.
ISOLATION HOSPITALS BILL.
"To amend The Isolation Hospitals Act, 1893." presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES).
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN HIS MAJESTY'S NAVY.
MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.)called attention to the position of Roman Catholic
744
chaplains in the Navy. He said this question involved the question of religious equality. He thought no weight of argument was necessary to convince the House of the justice of the claim they advanced on behalf of the Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy. Surely this was not a very unreasonable demand, when they came to consider the number of Catholics in the Navy. England was supposed to be the homo of toleration and religious equality. That had been asserted over and over again, but in the face of recent events—in the face of the fact that His Majesty had to take an oath which was an insult to millions of his subjects, he was afraid that assertion was not justified. Some of the pillars of the Conservative party in that House, or in the other House at least, belonged to the Catholic faith. It was the faith to which the great majority of the Irish people belonged, and really it was disgraceful for a great naval Power, such as England was, to have such a large number of Catholics in the Navy without making provision for having their spiritual wants administered to by the clergymen-belonging to their own religion. He believed the proportion of Roman Catholics in the Navy was something over 8 per cent. The Roman Catholics numbered more than the Presbyterians and Wesleyans combined, and really their position as regards chaplains was very unsatisfactory. Some reform should he introduced in regard to this crying grievance. It ought to be redressed, and he appealed to the sense of fair play of hon. Gentle men on both sides of the House to have it redressed. If it were only to allay Catholic feeling for the insults recently heaped upon them, some reform should be introduced.
When the hon. Member for East Clare introduced this question last year he got some vague assurance that the grievance would be redressed, but he was not aware that anything had been done. He supposed it would be out of order to refer to the fact that prison chaplains had a grievance also, but he merely mentioned in passing that while a Protestant chaplain received a salary of £450 a year, a Roman Catholic chaplain, for performing the same duties, and having the same responsibilities, only received £300 a year. Not only in

745
the Navy, but in other branches of the service, the priest, as compared with the minister of other religions, was severely handicapped. It seemed that altogether there were only twenty-one chaplains in the Navy, and counting annual allowances, they received sums varying from £25 to £200. Hon. Gentlemen would see that £25 was rather a small sum to pay the chaplain of any religion. There were only three out of twenty-one receiving £200 a year, which was less by £100 than was received by the Protestant chaplains, who had less duty to perform. No Catholic chaplains were allowed on hoard ship, so that Human Catholics might remain for years without seeing a clergyman of their own denomination, and if that was not a matter to he complained of he did not know what was. It was no wonder that Roman Catholic priests warned their flocks against joining the Navy, when these young men were sent away for months, and sometimes years, and had not the comfort of seeing their ministers of religion. A worse aspect of the case was that when the ships were in harbour the sailors were not even allowed to go ashore in order to attend a service in the church. On the occasion of Her late Majesty's funeral a large squadron assembled at Spithead, and on the Sunday none of the Roman Catholic sailors were allowed ashore in order that they might attend divine service. He did not know who was responsible for that. but somebody must have been, and although protest was made at the time, no notice was taken of it. During three years not one of the Roman Catholic sailors of H.M.S. "Excellent" was sent to church, and that was a state of things that ought to be remedied as soon as possible. Now that the Navy was going to be reorganised, in men armaments, and ships, was the proper time for remedying the crime of which he complained, and no reorganisation would he complete until the status of the Roman Catholics in the Navy was improved.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words ' in the opinion of this House. Roman Catholic Chaplains in His Majesty's Navy should be placed upon the same footing as regards rank and pay as Chaplains in His Majesty's Army "instead thereof."—(Mr. O'Doud.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. JOYCEsaid he desired to support the motion of the hon. Member, as he knew something of the disability under which the Roman Catholics in the Navy laboured, whether they were blue jackets or Marines. He had known on many occasions ships of the fleet to be lying in harbour, and when Sunday came round the Roman Catholic sailors were unable, owing to bad weather, to go ashore to church, and were thus debarred from the comforts of the ministration of the ministers of their religion. Every large ship of war had a Protestant chaplain on board, and he contended that if the Government wanted Catholic sailors, stokers, and Marines to man the Navy the least they could do was to provide for the ministrations of their religion. There was a very simple remedy for this crying evil. In the Army regiments had been territorialised, and regiments which were entirely, or almost entirely, composed of Catholics had a Catholic chaplain attached to them. As there were 10.000 or 15,000 Catholics in the Navy, why could not the same principle be applied there? Large bodies of Catholics could be drafted to particular ships to which Catholic chaplains should be appointed. Everybody would admit that a real grievance existed, and if the Admiralty were too bigoted to adopt this remedy, the Catholics of the country ought not to tight the battles of England. More important than that the men could not, go to mass on Sundays was the fact that when they were stricken down by grievous sickness, and were at the point of death, it was obligatory upon these men to have the consolations of their religion administered to them, hut in the Navy, as at present conducted, it was almost impossible for this to he done. There were a large number of Irish seamen and fishermen in the Royal Naval Reserve who were supposed now and again to go on a six months cruise, but nothing had been done to enable these men to enjoy the benefits arising from the ministration of their religion. For that reason alone many men refused to go on any such cruise, although the money to be thus earned would be very

747
acceptable to them. Was it not time that such a condition of things should be put an end to? We were living in an enlightened age, when such bigoted and fanatical ideas should be exploded, and if Catholic sailors were fit to fight the battles of the country they were surely entitled to the small concession for which the Irish Members were asking.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)desired, as this question affected a large number of his constituents who were members of the Royal Naval Reserve, to support the Nationalist Members who had already spoken. It was time the House had some definite statement from the Admiralty as to what they proposed to do in the matter. The question had been agitated for a considerable time; the Admiralty had received deputations of Irish Members who had laid the matter before them, but up to the present all endeavours in this direction had met with very little success. The provisions hitherto made to meet the requirements of Catholic sailors had not given satisfaction, and the object of the present debate was to get the Secretary to the Admiralty to approach the matter in a clear and broad-minded manner, and see it if was not possible to comply with the legitimate wishes of Catholic sailors in this respect. As far as the circumstances of the Admiralty allowed, definite and permanent regulations should be made for that purpose. One would have thought it would have been in the interest of the Admiralty itself to fall in with this desire of Catholic sailors, as there were various depots in Ireland—a number of the Royal Naval Reserve came from Ireland—and with the increased number of men to be obtained it was probable that there would be a yet larger demand for religious accommodation for Catholic sailors. He therefore hoped that before the debate closed the House would be given some assurance that the Admiralty proposed to deal with this question seriously; otherwise the Government would hear a great deal more about the matter from the Irish benches.
MR. DILLON (Mayo. E.)said that if the Government would pass a regulation forbidding any Catholic to enter the
748
Navy he would willingly give an undertaking never to quarrel with that rule or to cause any more bother over this question. But all the while Catholic Irishmen were asked to give their services and to risk their lives in defence of the British Empire the Government were bound to treat them as Christians and human beings. The Government had no right to place them alongside their Protestant fellow-countrymen, and then to refuse to recognise their religious convictions, and decline to grant facilities for the exercise of their religious belief. The question was raised before, twenty-five or thirty years ago, in an eloquent speech by Mr. Alexander Sullivan, but upon certain pledges being given by the Government the subject was allowed to slip, and those promises were never fulfilled. In the year 1896 he himself raised the question on the Admiralty Vote, when Mr. Goschen immediately rose and promised that the Admiralty would give the subject their most earnest consideration, with a desire to do full justice to Catholic sailors. That assurance was so satisfactory that the debate came to an end, but still nothing tangible resulted. One of the demands then made was that Catholic chaplains in the Navy should be placed on the same footing as regarded rank, authority, and emoluments as had been won for the Catholic chaplains in the Army. The onus of justifying a refusal of such a request must lie, and rather heavily, with the representative of the Admiralty. In the case of the Army, it was a good many years before the concessions were made, but the agitation went on, until at last the Catholic chaplain in the Army was placed precisely on an equality as regarded pay, rank, and authority with the Protestant chaplain. After the debate in 1890 long negotiations took place between the Admiralty and the Roman Catholic bishops of this country, as a result of which a statement of the Catholic demands was put forward as a compromise, representing certainly the low-water mark of the reasonable expectations of Catholics. The first point was that Catholic chaplains should have rank, salary, and pension equal to those of Church of England chaplains. Until the concession was made Catholics would not be content, as it was really of vital

749
importance. The Admiralty had no right whatever to resist such a request, as it could not be pretended that on the question of rank any inconvenience or difficulty could arise. It was a grave and wanton humiliation of His Majesty's Catholic sailors to see their chaplains placed in a different social position or status from that of the chaplains of other religions. The point had been conceded in the Army. What sacred principle was there which prevented it in the Navy? Were the antiquated principles of bigotry which for many years had been banished from the Army to be allowed to prevail in the Navy? As a justification for this attitude, it had been urged that it would not be reasonable to demand that there should be a Catholic chaplain on every ship. That had always been admitted, seeing that the proportion of Roman Catholics was only about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. But the original proposal was that there should be a chaplain to every squadron, and that he should reside on the flagship, so that when any large division of the -Fleet went into action there would be a Catholic chaplain within reach. It was an act of outrageous cruelty that in such a case there should be ten or fifteen Protestant chaplains, and not a single; Catholic chaplain who could give to the mass of wounded and dying Catholics the consolations afforded by ministrations of their religion. To say that accommodation for one chaplain could not be found in a squadron was an absurdity. The second part of the demand to which he had referred was for the appointment of chaplains and acting chaplains at a number of stations, with an increase in the pay. On this point the Admiralty had made considerable concessions. Chaplains—but without rank and not on the Establishment—were appointed at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, and Malta, and acting chaplains at smaller salaries elsewhere. The salary generally was from £175 to £200 a year. He had in his hand a list of twenty stations where Roman Catholic chaplains had been appointed, and with the exception of a few of those he had no complaint to make with regard to the allowances, because in certain of those stations the amount of work to be done by the chaplains was neither regular, steady, nor
750
very large, and therefore it was not reasonable to suggest that they should be put upon the Establishment. In the case of Esquimalt, he thought the allowance, in spite of it having been increased to £75, was still far too small. Speaking on behalf of the 10,000 Roman Catholic sailors in the Navy, nine-tenths of whom were Irish Catholics, he demanded, and would insist upon, proper facilities being given for these men to exercise their religious inclinations, and the ministers who attended to their spiritual welfare being placed upon an equality with the Protestant chaplains.
MR. BLACKsaid he approached this question not entirely from a religious point of view. The Navy was recruited principally from the southern districts, but there were very large recruiting grounds both in Ireland and Scotland. On the north-west and the north-east coasts of Scotland there were to be found the finest men in the world for the Navy if the Navy were only open to them.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the question before the House, which is the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains to the Navy.
MR. BLACK MR. BLACK said ho was coming to that point immediately, not only with regard to Roman Catholics but to ministers of religion generally, if it would be in order.
*MR. SPEAKER: No, that would not be in order.
MR. BLACK: Then, Sir, I will raise that point on the main question.
*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I am sure hon. Members opposite would not desire me to approach this question from an academic point of view, but to confine myself to the purely naval aspect of the question raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I am bound to say at the outset that the one thing that is made clear by the speech of the hon. Gentleman is that so far from the Admiralty being averse to doing anything in this matter, they have

751
done everything they could. The views of the hon. Member for East Mayo and of the two hon. Members who opened this discussion are not apparently quite the same. The hon. Member for South Sligo and the gentleman who supported took the view that it was possible to place Roman Catholic chaplains on all the ships.
MR. O'DOWD: No, no. I said if it were not possible to do that there should be at least one appointed to every-squadron.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Perhaps I misapprehended the hon. Gentleman. I did not understand him to express that view, but I do not wish to dwell upon that point. What I wish to say is that hon. Members have given the impression that nothing has been done to provide for the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholics in the Navy. The hon. Member for South Sligo said the sailors of the "Excellent" had not been able to follow their religion for three years; that is so contrary to my information that it is incredible. What has been done, so far as the resources of the Admiralty permitted, is to provide at every port to which His Majesty's ships are in the habit of going and in a great many ports where they are not in the habit of going a Roman Catholic chaplain to provide for the ministrations of the Roman Catholic sailors in the Navy.
MR. O'DOWD: I may say I am in a position to prove my statement.
*MR. ARNOLD-FOESTER: Of course if the hon. Gentleman is able to do that there will be good ground for complaint, which I shall do my best to meet. I have before me a list of no less than 148 stations at which there are Roman Catholic priests, who are either paid for their services or who receive an allowance upon all occasions when they minister to the sailors of the Elect. I think it will be admitted that the contention that has been advanced that nothing has been done is unjust and unreasonable. The analogy of the hon. Member for South Sligo is not sound. He held up the example of the Army, and said there were regiments which were so largely or exclusively composed of Roman Catholics that it had
752
been found possible to appoint chaplains of that faith to them, and he suggested that we should have ships in the Navy that should be exclusively manned by Roman Catholics. That is a suggestion that would not commend itself to the Admiralty. In the first place it would result in the formation of what I might call "Denominational Squadrons," and in the second the crews which manned those ships would have to be allotted, not according to their ratings, but according to their religion. Reference had been made to a deputation composed of the hon. Member for East Clare and other hon. Members. I think I may say that every one of the recommendations made has either been given effect to, or that some attempt has been made to carry out the views of the deputation with respect to it. One complaint was that no adequate provision was made for the ministration of Roman Catholic sailors on the China station, and steps were at once taken to send out a priest. Another suggestion was that steps should bo taken on hospital ships to minister to the sick and dying Roman Catholic sailors. The acquiescence in that proposition which Mr. Goschen made has not been carried out, because we have no hospital ships attached to the Navy; but, if we have in the future, as I. believe and hope we shall have, hospital ships attached to our squadrons, I have no doubt that the pledge then given to Mr. Goschen will be carried into effect. I should like to mention here that this question is not quite so clear as hon. Gentlemen would have us believe. I do not think the views expressed here as to the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church are universally entertained elsewhere. I find both in France and Germany, where there are enormous Roman Catholic populations, there is not a single Roman Catholic chaplain appointed. Nor in Russia do I find a Roman Catholic chaplain carried on the ships. Of course even now in the British Navy the number of ships which carry a chaplain at all is exceedingly limited. It is quite a mistake to suppose that chaplains are carried by all the ships. The hon. Member for East Mayo made a suggestion the force of which I do not deny. The hon. Member said that, when squadrons were going on long

753
cruises or into action, it would he desirable that they should be accompanied by Roman Catholic chaplains. I would, however, point out that the cruises are now exceedingly short. The mere necessity for coaling brings the ships back to port with extraordinary regularity at exceedingly short intervals, and I believe the grievance is not felt in any great degree among the sailors, who do not, in practice, find themselves debarred from these ministrations. But, Sir, I wish to repeat that there is no desire on the part of the Admiralty to do anything but what is just and reasonable, but they cannot do more than they have done.
MR. DILLON: You have not said anything about the rank of the chaplains.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: They have no rank.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): Does the hon. Gentleman say that chaplains in His Majesty's Navy do not rank as officers?
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Perhaps I expressed myself inaccurately. Chaplains in His Majesty's Navy have no substantive rank. They rank with the officers when they are at sea, but not on shore.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): What about the Roman Catholic chaplains?
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: They do not go to sea in His Majesty's ships, and therefore the question does not arise. There are three established Roman Catholic chaplains who perform duties on shore, and I can assure hon. Members that if any of those officers do go to sea attached to any squadron, they will have precisely the same privileges of equivalent rank as the chaplains who now go to sea.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDwas of opinion that the tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was a friendly one, and it had been a great pleasure to hear such a tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman; but when he, reflected upon the length
754
of time during which the question had cropped up in the House and the number of friendly speeches which had been delivered by the representatives of the Admiralty, he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman would be able or really try to meet the views of hon. Members on this question. The hon. Gentleman had advanced a curious argument against Roman Carbolic chaplains being carried on His Majesty' s ships when he said they were not carried in the ships of the French. German, or Russian navies. It was not necessary, he apprehended, for the British Navy to follow the example of the navies of other countries in any question. The fact that other countries made no provision was no reason to advance to the House of Commons against the action which hon. Members thought ought to be taken in common fairness and justice to the Roman Catholic sailors of the Fleet. The hon. Gentleman had said with truth that since the agitation on this question had commenced in the House the Admiralty had done a great deal towards meeting the views of the Roman Catholics in the matter. The matter was raised as long ago as 1878, and undoubtedly since then a good deal had been done. The hon. Gentleman that evening had gone further than any of his predecessors when he undertook that when a squadron went on a long cruise a Roman Catholic chaplain should be carried, but the hon. Gentleman had made no case against the assertion of the hon. Member for East Mayo that there was a grievance as regarded the question of rank. Protestant chaplains occupied the position of commissioned officers, hut not a single Roman Catholic held a similar position, and although hon. Members might not consider that a very great matter, it was one which had a great effect on the minds of the Roman Catholic sailors, who were entitled to expect that the ministers of their religion should occupy a similar position to that occupied by chaplains of the Church of England. The answer of the hon. Gentleman was that Roman Catholic chaplains did not sail in the Fleet but performed their duties ashore, and that therefore they ought not to expect to enjoy the rank of the Protestant chaplains of the Fleet. That was a point on which the Admiralty

755
might give way. Why not grant to the Catholic chaplains, whether ashore or afloat, the same rank as was given to the chaplains of the Protestant Church? No adequate reason had ever been put forward on the part of the Admiralty for refusing the requests of the Catholics on this matter. How could it injure the Admiralty or increase to any great extent the cost of maintaining the chaplains in the Fleet? Would it impair the efficiency of the Fleet or give any offence to any section of the people, or cause any inconvenience? It could not be contended that it would; and therefore under these circumstances ho maintained it was a legitimate and reasonable ground of complaint on the part of the people who belonged to the Catholic faith that the chaplains of their Church, who were engaged ashore—it was true they were not afloat, but still engaged in the service of the Navy—were denied the same rank as officers which was held by the chaplains of the Established Church of England. That was a grievance which he thought might, without any violence to precedents or any inconvenience to the Admiralty, be remedied at once. He was very glad that the hon. Gentleman had made so conciliatory a reply. It showed that he was anxious to meet the views of the Irish Members, and that he did not, as some of his predecessors had done in the past, make out that this was a question more or less affecting English Catholics, and that as long as English Ecclesiastical opinion was satisfied in the matter there was no great necessity to satisfy Irish Catholic feeling. He might say that an official of the Admiralty in the House had told him in the course of a private conversation, that really the Irish Members had no business to interfere or trouble the House on this matter in view of the fact that the English Catholics did not raise it. The inference was that the English Catholics were quite satisfied and that Irish Catholics ought to be. The answer to all that was, that while they had the greatest possible respect for English Catholics, they could never forgot that for centuries every grievance which the Catholic Church suffered from and which had been removed, had been removed, not by agitation on the part of the English Catholics, but by hard battles fought
756
by the poor Irish people. Indeed, this was more an Irish than an English question. He did not quite agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo when he put the proportion of Irish Catholics in the Navy at such a high figure, but he did maintain that the very great majority of the Catholic sailors in the Navy were Irishmen, and, that being so, it was not surprising that Irish Catholic Members of Parliament and Cardinal Logue should take a deep and abiding interest in this question, and that it should occupy their minds until the grievances had been removed, however complacent English Catholics might be. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman would go to a division or not, but if he did, he would undoubtedly vote with him, because they had learned from past experience that no matter how friendly the intentions of the officials of the Admiralty might be, they had never had any grievance removed unless they agitated these grievances and brought them forward on the floor of the House on every possible opportunity. He strongly urged on the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast to approach the Admiralty generally and endeavour to secure a satisfactory settlement of these questions once for all, so that Irish Members might be spared bringing their grievances forward year after year and occupying the time of the House.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he wished to prevent any misunderstanding. What he meant to convey was that when large squadrons went on cruises which would take the men away for a long time from all means of enjoying the ministrations of their religion, it might be possible to arrange that a Roman Catholic chaplain should be carried; but as to cruises such as that of the Channel Squadron, when the fleet frequently touched at ports, such anarrangement would be uncalled for.
MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.)said there was great danger of due consideration not being given to the fact of the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic country. In Ireland they had a positive religion, whereas the Protestant religion was negative. [An HON. MEM-

757
BER: No, no.] Yes, yes. Some people seemed to think that the orders of their Church were not considered of much importance, but that was a mistake. Their religion being positive, their ordinances meant something, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that Catholic chaplains should be appointed wherever there were Catholic people, be they more or less numerous. If it was intended to attract Irishmen into the Navy, the Government must be very particular in supplying them with the ordinances of their religion, which in all walks of life was the basis of their action.
SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said he did not think that the tone of the discussion, which had been so friendly, should be marred by any remark disrespectful to their respective religious persuasions. He had heard with great pleasure the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, conceding the very natural and proper desires of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He himself had had experience of the admirable conduct of Roman Catholic chaplains in the East, and it was well known that the coadjutor Bishop of Westminster had, by his conduct in Egypt and in the Soudan, won the respect of all classes and religions. He would suggest that when the number of Roman Catholic sailors justified the appointment of a priest for his whole time in the service in the Navy, it would be only proper that he should receive official rank in the same way as in the Army. That would go far to meet the desires of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.
MR. POWER (Waterford. E.)quite agreed with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for East Clare to the effect that the statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty was an advance on those made on former occasions by the hon. Gentleman's predecessors. At the same time he could not help casting his mind back over the many years in which they had made similar propositions, and when they had been almost derided and told of the impossibility of granting their demands. After twenty years it was very comforting to think that the authorities recognised that these demands should be conceded; and he hoped the pledges given would be carried into effect. That hope, however, had
758
been somewhat marred by the second utterance of the hon. Gentleman, which seemed to whittle down very much the concession he had made in his first speech. There was an old saying that "Where there's a will there's a way," and he firmly believed that if the Admiralty were to consider the points which the Irish Members put before them in a sympathetic manner, they would find opportunities of meeting them. These matters had a sentimental as well as a religious side, and the Government, therefore, ought to pay particular attention to the views put forward from the Irish benches. Without in the slightest degree reflecting on any other creed, it was notorious that the feelings of Irishmen were different from those of other people, and that the ministrations of their Church were of far more importance to them than the ministrations of other Churches to their people. Many young fellows—as fine young fellows as were to be found anywhere—-were in his neighbourhood joining the Royal Naval Reserve, and if the Government accepted their services they had a right to provide for their religious ministrations, and to do nothing to outrage their beliefs. He could not see why the position of Catholic chaplains in point of, emolument should be worse than that of chaplains of other creeds, but it was notorious that they were not placed on an equality. In the minds of many the treatment meted out to Catholic chaplains was regarded as a slur upon them; it placed a badge of inferiority upon them compared with chaplains of other creeds, and also a badge of inferiority on the sailors to whom they ministered. Irish Members had, therefore, the right to resent that the Catholic chaplains were not on a par with the chaplains of other creeds. English Catholics had, to some extent, enjoyed the advantages that had been won for them by their fellow Catholics in Ireland, but he thought that the Admiralty should have communicated with Cardinal Logue on this matter, which concerned Irish more than English Catholics. For his part, he thought that the promise which had been made by the representative of the Admiralty could not be considered satisfactory in the least degree.
*MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)said there was one point to which he wished

759
to draw the attention of the hon. Member for West Belfast. During the Naval manoeuvres last year and the year before, when the Channel Squadron was in Irish waters, some of the officers refused to allow the Catholic sailors to go ashore and attend church services, although no manoeuvres were going on at the time. He was not then in Parliament, but he had at that time wrote a letter on the subject to the Admiralty, and had merely received the stereotyped official answer. If the statement of the hon. Member for West Belfast had been made for the first time in reference to this question of naval chaplains, his hon. friend, the Member for South Sligo, might be advised to withdraw his motion. But, so far back as 1896 Mr. Goschen, in answer to the hon. Member for East-Mayo, gave an undertaking that the Admiralty would increase the number of Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy. Two years later, in answer to a question, also put by the hon. Member for East Mayo, why the undertaking had not been carried out, Mr. Goschen said that the proposal for increasing the number of Catholic chaplains in the Navy had been before the Treasury since 1896; and it was only in 1898 that the permission of the Treasury had been given. How did they know that the same procedure would not be gone through again? It might be three or four years before the Treasury authority would be obtained for the changes promised that night. Ho noticed that seven-eighths of the Vote of £36,000 for Navy chaplains went to chaplains belonging to the Established Church of England. This was not so much a question of religion or nationality as of efficiency. They had been told that England must depend for its safety upon its fleet, and surely every inducement should be offered to young men to join the Navy. He knew in his own constituency of young men who, on account of there being no Catholic chaplains in the Navy, had actually loft this country and joined the American Navy, and so the Empire had lost their services.
MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said he wished to say one word on the question of issuing commissions to Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy. Hon. Gentlemen
760
opposite seemed to think that these Roman Catholic chaplains, not being commissioned, were placed in some sort of social inferiority to those who were commissioned. He would point out that that was not so. The chaplains in the Navy who were commissioned were not put in a position of superiority; they had no relative rank on hoard ship by reason of their commissions. The issue of commissions to chaplains of the Church of England was a question merely of administrative convenience, in sending them afloat or ashore to any quarter of the world. Their commission entitled them to a cabin on board ship; and, in the event of their death, their widows were entitled to pensions. He wished to point out that Protestant chaplains had on shore no rank on account of their religion above Roman Catholic chaplains: the whole question was one of administrative convenience, and for that reason he was bound to say that, whatever might be the sentiment which lay behind the demand of the hon. Gentleman opposite, in this case there was no actual grievance, and as the Admiralty had no control over Roman Catholic chaplains at ports, and had no authority to move them from one place to another, they were in an entirely different position to Protestant chaplains in the Navy.
DR. THOMPSON (Monaghan, N),speaking as a Protestant and as a surgeon who had served some years in the Navy, said that in his opinion the Roman Catholics in this matter had a very serious ground for complaint. The Secretary to the Admiralty, so far as he could see, had given no reason whatever why Ro-man Catholic chaplains should not be placed upon the same footing as Protestant chaplains. He thought this difficulty might be got over if that were done. He did not of course believe that unjust concessions or privileges should be made to Catholics or anyone else, but he maintained that there should be no inequality of treatment between Catholics and Protestants, and that any privileges the one possessed should be freely and as a matter of right accorded to the other. The curse of Ireland in the past had been, the maintenance of a system the exact opposite of what he now contended

761
for as regards Catholic naval chaplains. He would respectfully urge upon the Government the necessity of complying with the very reasonable request conveyed to them by every Irish and many English Members who had joined in the debate. So far as the officers in the Navy were concerned, no difficulty would be raised by them. The staff surgeon of the ship upon which he served in the Mediterranean, who was a Roman Catholic, was the most popular man on board, and from his own experience he could say that the officers in His Majesty's Navy did not care two jack straws what a man's religion was so long as he was an agreeable companion and a reliable friend. The whole difficulty would disappear if Roman Catholic chaplains were appointed to each Admiral's ship, with the same status and pay as their Protestant brothers.
MR. J. P FARRELL (Longford, N.)said he joined in the demand for the redress of this grievance, which was now being debated in the House for the third time. He was present two years previously when the late First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Goschen, made a distinct promise to the hon. Member for East Mayo that he would find some means of redressing this grievance under which the Catholic sailors suffered, but so far as the Irish Members could learn no effort had been made to carry out that promise. When the House considered that there were 10,000 Roman Catholic seamen serving in the Navy it was surely not an unreasonable demand to make that there should be Roman Catholic chaplains appointed to each ship. If that were done a good deal of the grievance would be removed. It was absolutely absurd for the hon. Member for South Antrim to attempt to argue that, owing to their not holding commission, the Roman Catholic ministers were not branded with the mark of inferiority. The Roman Catholic ministers in this case were quite as much entitled to fair treatment as the Protestants. There were 170 Protestant chaplains in the Navy, most of whom held commission rank in the service. There were no Roman Catholic chaplains who held a like position, and it could not be argued that such a state of things did not place a badge of inferiority
762
on the Roman Catholics. It might be urged that this was a mere matter of sentiment, and that no useful purpose would be served by taking action in the matter, but he would point out that it was a matter of the very deepest interest to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, from whom the Navy drew 7,000 men a year. Of such deep interest was the question to the parents and to the prelates of Ireland that an embargo had been placed upon the people joining the Service. There was a real and tangible grievance in this matter, for although hon. Gentlemen opposite might call it sentiment, it was one of the most vital questions of the day, affecting as it did the spiritual welfare of many thousands of men in the Navy. There were two complaints with regard to this branch of the Service: one was with regard to the emolument, and second, the question of rank. The Secretary to the Admiralty had in his first speech given great hope that something would be done with regard to these matters, but he had apparently repented of his promise, because in his second reply he had taken away what he had promised on the first occasion; the question therefore would be loft in the same position as it was when Lord Goschen left the Admiralty. Lord Goschen, when First Lord of the Admiralty, made most sympathetic promises, and there the matter ended. The hon. Gentleman would, he supposed, do the same as Lord Goschen had done during the last six years. He had heard it stated from the Government Benches in the past that the Government were afraid to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains to ships containing a Protestant chaplain, because of the friction which might arise, but the hon. Member for North Monaghan had made a most valuable statement with regard to that matter, and conclusively proved that there would be no difficulty in that matter. He could not congratulate the hon. Gentleman opposite on the undoubted change which had taken place in his views since he had been elevated to his present position. When in other days the hon. Gentleman from his seat below the gangway criticised with vigour and ability the Navy Estimates the grievances of the Irish Members had some share of his sympathy, and he implored the hon. Gentleman to show

763
that sympathy now by pressing upon the Department which he represented the fact that this was a live grievance, which wanted remedying. He warned the hon. Member that if he approached the matter in a half-hearted way, or attempted to ignore it, there would, upon subsequent I occasions, be a full ventilation of the grievance from the Irish benches.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, so far as the Irish Benches were concerned, there was no desire to prolong the debate, and he had hoped a division upon the question might have been avoided, because some of the statements of the Secretary for the Navy, if not altogether satisfactory, had shown a desire to do something with a good grace. He, however, regretted that the hon. Gentleman in his second speech took away the reality of the concessions which he had given in his first. The hon. Member for South Antrim in the course of his observations had said that with regard to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains, the Roman Catholics were in no worse position than the Methodists or any other religious sect of this country, but the hon. Member had overlooked the fact that only one religion was represented in the Navy— that of the Established Church—and from that point of view a monopoly was being created in favour of the members of the Established Church. On the other hand, there was an impassable gulf between all sects of Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church which did not exist between the divisions of the Church of England, so that Methodists and persons of other denominations had the benefit of the ministrations of the Protestant chaplain. This question had been raised over and over again, and he thought that on this occasion some advance had been made with regard to it. They did not demand that a Roman Catholic chaplain should be appointed to every large ship in the Navy, they only asked that one should be appointed to every squadron. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, in his speech, had narrowed down his promise with regard to that to promising that if there was a squadron which was going on a long cruise, then, and then only, should a Roman Catholic
764
chaplain be appointed to one of the vessels in the squadron. Every one thought at first that the hon. Gentleman had promised at first that there should be a Roman Catholic chaplain appointed to every squadron wherever it might have to go, and it was not, after all, an unreasonable thing to ask, that when there was a squadron of ships containing 2,000 or 3,000 Catholics they should have the benefit of their spiritual guide, but the hon. Gentleman restricted that concession to a squadron on a long cruise. What made that restriction the more extraordinary was the fact that, after all the agitation upon this matter, after Lord Goschen had practically accepted the principle of the demand of the hon. Members for East Mayo and East Clare, and after all the promises which had been given by Lord Goschen with regard to the matter, the Secretary to the Admiralty had come down and, with a grand appearance of making a great concession, had given what the Board of Admiralty had given twenty-two years before. The Secretary to the Admiralty said that he could only give an Irish chaplain to a squadron which was ordered on a long cruise. On June! 7th, 1878, the Board of Admiralty issued a Mimute which said—
"My Lords direct that when a large number of ships forming a squadron are sent on any service which will keep them for any length of time from a port where a Roman Catholic priest is in residence, arrangements are to he made for a Roman Catholic chaplain to accompany the squadron."
Was it fair to come down to the House in 1901, after twenty-two years of agitation and promises made only to be broken, to meet the Irish Members with the repetition of a Minute issued by the Board of Admiralty twenty-two years previously? It was treating the Irish representatives with ignominy and contempt. He hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury, whom he saw in his place, would give some intimation that the Government intended to act up to some of the promises which had been made; but if he did not, and if they were to be met with a repetition of what had taken place in the past, they could only keep agitating the question. Under the circumstances he should vote for the Amendment.
MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)said he represented a constituency which sent a great number of young men into the Navy, and therefore he desired to protest against the hard and fast line taken by the Admiralty, who absolutely refused to grant to Irish Roman Catholic chaplains the same treatment as was meted out to their brothers in the Protestant religion. The Government were always ready in his district to recruit for the Navy among the hardy fishermen of the neighbourhood. They were ready enough to take the men, but not to spend a few pounds in order that the men they took, who carried their religion deep in their hearts, might have the comfort of the ministrations
of their own religious minister. Would it not be worth while to consider whether men did not make better sailors by having their religion at heart? It was a cruel thing not to provide Catholic chaplains. The concession granted by the hon. Gentleman was utterly worthless, and therefore he hoped the matter would be pressed to a division. If the concessions asked for were not granted he hoped the Government would be able to obtain no more recruits from the west coast of Ireland.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 84.)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)

Young, Commanded (Berks, E.)

NOES,

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gilhooly, James

O'Dowd, John

Ambrose, Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Asher, Alexander

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Austin, Sir John

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Malley, William

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bell, Richard

Holland, William Henry

O'Shee, James John

Blake, Edward

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

Partington, Oswald

Boland, John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Joicey, Sir James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boyle, James

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, M.

Brigg, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kennedy, Patrick James

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burt, Thomas

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Rickett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Kitson, Sir James

Rigg, Richard

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leamy, Edmund

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Lundon, W.

Roche, John

Clancy, John Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Schwan, Charles E.

Colville, John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sullivan, Donal

Crean, Eugene

M'Fadden, Edward

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cremer, William Randal

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Cullinan, J.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

Daly, James

Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

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

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Murphy, J.

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

Doogan, P. C.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Duffy, William J.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Duncan, James H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

Fenwick, Charles

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

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

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Field, William

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Doherty, William

Main Question again proposed.

THE GOVERNMENT'S NAVAL PROPOSALS,
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My principal object in rising now is to place before the House and the country the view which I believe is taken by those who sit on this bench and on this side of the House—certainly, I believe, by those with whom I had the honour to act on a former Board of Admiralty—of the large proposals now made by the Government.
The first point upon which I wish to speak is the controversy with regard to Belleville boilers. That controversy began seven years ago, at the instance of my hon. friend the Member for Gateshead. At that time the then Board of Admiralty extended on a large scale for the first time the adoption of the water-tube boiler, which had already been adopted on a comparatively small scale by the previous Administration.
768
My hon. friend challenged our action on, that occasion, and it fell upon me to explain the views of the Board. Last session the then First Lord of the Admiralty announced the appointment of an Expert Committee to examine the whole position. That Committee has now reported, and I wish to call the attention of the representatives of the Admiralty to the position in which they find themselves in face of that Report. I do not think the hon. Member for Gateshead has any reason to be dissatisfied with that Report.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: No. I have not.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Because, although perhaps not in an unqualified manner, it does find against the Belleville boiler to a large extent. As representing the Admiralty of 1893, I have no reason, to, be dissatisfied with

769
the Report either, because in one paragraph the Committee declare that—
"at the time the Belleville boiler was introduced into the Navy in the' Powerful and' Terrible' it was the only large tube type of water-tube boiler which had been tried at sea on a considerable scale under ordinary working conditions. The Committee therefore consider that there was justification for them regarding it as the most suitable type of water-tube boiler for the Navy."
I do not think I could envy the position of an Admiralty face to face with a Report such as this. I do not for one moment begrudge any praise that may be due to the Expert Committee, which gave its time, experience, and talents to the consideration of this serious question, but I cannot at present conceive what line of policy the Admiralty ought now to adopt. The findings of the Committee do not appear to be clear or consistent one with another. In the first place they find in favour of the water-tube boiler in general. They declare that it—
"would be more suitable for use in His "Majesty's Navy than the cylindrical type of boiler,"
and go on to give reasons for that opinion. They specify the most important requirements from a military point of view, and they declare that—
"these requirements are met by the water-tube boiler in a greater degree than by the cylindrical boiler, and are considered by the Committee of such importance as to outweigh the advantages of the latter type in economy of fuel and cost of up-keep."
Having said that, the Committee say a number of other things hardly consistent with it.
But I pass from that commendation of the water-tube boiler principle in general to what the Committee say about the Belleville boiler in particular. When we adopted that policy in 1893, in continuation of the policy of our predecessors, we always declared that while the Belleville appeared to us to be the best boiler for the moment of that type, we were in no way committed to it. This Committee speak in a very peculiar way about the Belleville boiler. They—
"do not consider that the Belleville boiler has any such advantage over other types of water-tube boilers as leads them to recommend
770
it as the best adapted to the requirements of His Majesty's Navy."
That is their statement. But what is their recommendation? They make a recommendation which it appears to me can only cause embarrassment to the present Board of Admiralty. As regards new ships, and what I may call "infant"ships—that is, ships just begun — they recommend the Admiralty to discard the Belleville boiler altogether. As regards finished ships and ships under construction which are beyond the engine stage, they recommend its retention. These are curious recommendations, and they become all the more curious when the Committee go on, in answer to queries put by the Admiralty as to what they would recommend in place of the Belleville, to specify four kinds of water-tube boilers, of which they suggest that some or all types should be taken. These four types are all, in the first instance, to be experimented upon. As to the first two —the"Babcock and Wilcox" and the "Niclausse"— the Committee recommend that certain sloops and cruisers should be expedited in order that the value of these types of boilers for naval purposes may be ascertained at the earliest possible date. Having already discarded the Belleville type and recommended these as substitutes, they go on to say that the first thing to be done is to ascertain what their value is for naval purposes. So it is with the other two specimens. They are also to be experimented upon with a view to seeing what their real value is. That is a recommendation which I think the Admiralty will have some difficulty in acting upon.

Further, after specifying certain advantages connected with the Belleville boiler, the Committee go on to say—
"The additional evaporating plant required with Belleville boilers, and the greater coal consumption on ordinary service as compared with cylindrical boilers, has hitherto nullified to a great extent the saving of weight effected by their adoption, and in considering the radius of action it is doubtful whether any real advantage has been gained."
That is, I understand, any real advantage over the cylindrical boiler. Having previously stated that military requirements—which, of course, are paramount in this question—condemn the cylindrical

771
boiler, and support the water-tube type, they make that remark about the Belleville. They then say—
"The Committee are not prepared without further experience to say to what extent this may not apply to other types of water-tube boilers."
I confess I hardly know what conclusion to draw from this Report, and my difficulty is not lessened -when I find this remarkable paragraph following the passages to which I have already referred—
"To obtain satisfactory results in the working of the Belleville boilers, in face of the defects named in paragraph (9), more than ordinary experience and skill are required on the part of the engine-room staff. It appears, however, from the evidence placed before the Committee that the engineer officers in charge of Belleville boilers have not been made acquainted with the best method of working the boiler, and that which experience has shown to be the most effectual in preventing pitting and corrosion of tubes."
It would be invidious for me to go any further into the conclusions of this Report. It appears to me to be a most embarrassing document for the Admiralty, and I do not envy the Board which, having appointed this Committee, is now face to face with a Report so inconclusive, and so far from clear, and so inconsistent as this Report is in many respects. And my difficulty in knowing what the Admiralty can possibly do is increased by the statement of the hon. Gentleman himself. In his remarks the other night about the Belleville boiler I understood him to declare that the ships fitted with the type are working satisfactorily now, and have been for years in foreign navies. What is the result to be? I do not know what those who advised the Admiralty to adopt the water-tube boiler in principle and the Belleville boiler by preference have to say to this Report. Our then technical advisers are still the advisers of the Admiralty: one of our colleagues (not mentioned here) on the Board of Admiralty of that day is in office now, namely, the First Sea Lord. He was a party to the adoption of the water-tube principle and the Belleville boiler by the Board of which I had the honour to be a member. I should like to know, before coming to a conclusion, how the opinions of our experts, and those who advised us, and whose advice we were
772
bound to take, are modified by the conclusions arrived at by this Committee. The alternative placed before us was this—"Foreign navies are adopting the water-tube boiler. You must accept either the water-tube boiler or inferiority in an essential military requirement, and the best type of boiler is the Belleville." That was our position when we entered upon the large experiment in 1893. The hon. Member for Gateshead will admit that his original criticism against our policy was directed not so much against the particular type of boiler, or perhaps even the water-tube principle itself, as against our taking a large step-in advance without further experiments. That position I defended at the time, and I need only say in defence of it now that we fitted two cruisers with the type best known, and which had been experimented upon under conditions which we were advised offered a guarantee of its suitability. In making that statement I am not in any way casting a reflection upon the action of the succeeding Board of Admiralty, which carried our policy to a point much further than we had done. We should very likely have done exactly as they did, but I wanted to make clear how this controversy originated, and what the share of our Board in it was. Having said that I will pass from this subject with the-observation that this Report, able as the members of the Committee may have been, is of such a character that it does not take away from the Admiralty one single ounce of responsibility. They must go back to the expert skill with which the Admiralty is so admirably endowed. This is an incident only in the history of this very important question, and we shall look to the Admiralty on its own responsibility of skilled advisers to decide now, as if no such Report had been issued, what their policy in the future should be.
The next point in the programme to which I should like to direct attention is the adoption of submarine boats for the first time in this year's programme. I have given a good deal of attention, both while I was in the Admiralty office and since, to this question, and, having supported this experiment in this House and out of it, it may seem somewhat ungracious for me to cast any reflection

773
upon what the Admiralty are going to do. But there are some things that ought to be said, for it appears to be a serious thing. France has fifty-six submarine boats, and the chief-constructor of the American Navy is one of the warmest advocates of submarine boats. As this is only a matter of experiment I do think it might have been introduced upon a somewhat smaller scale. If its value is purely conjectural I should have said that one boat would have been enough to experiment with. Two should have been quite enough, but we generally do things on a large scale, and after having refused to say one word for many years about submarine boats we now find the Admiralty launching out into quite a little fleet of them. I think it was the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord who was asked a question not long ago about submarine boats. He gave the answer which has been repeated from time immemorial, and he added that a statement would he made in the Estimate, and no policy was announced. We find now that in regard to these five submarine boats some of them were ordered in the year 1000. We have travelled far and fast in this country in some ways, but what has become of the control of the House of Commons? What has become of that control when the Admiralty of the day having refused to tell us their policy come forward shortly afterwards and say they will build five of these boats? Lord Goschen, to whose zeal, firmness of purpose, and devotion to the interests of the Navy I desire to be allowed to pay a tribute, carried things pretty far in the last Parliament. He came down at the end of the session not to propose a Supplementary Estimate, but to mention to us on another Vote that he intended to build a certain number of extra ships which were not provided for in the original Estimate. The Member for West Monmouthshire protested against that course as an abuse of the position of the Government, and said that they had no right to build any ships except upon an Estimate submitted to and approved by the House of Commons. I cannot help protesting against this, for a new departure of this nature ought not to have been made except with the sanction of the House, and at the very least it ought not to have been done without being divulged to the House.
774
The next point I come to is that mysterious expedition to Gibraltar, which has lately been sanctioned. I do not know what lies behind that adventurous voyage of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and his colleagues. When it was first mentioned we took no exception to an inquiry, and the House has probably now forgotten what a remarkable kind of investigation it was to be. We now know that there is to be a Committee and no Commission, no common reference and no connected Report, and all we know is that a certain number of gentlemen—of whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn is not more than one—are to be appointed and are to be asked to investigate some questions. Who the colleagues of the hon. Member for King's Lynn are we have not yet perfectly ascertained, but that appears to me to be a very curious sort of inquiry to propose into a matter so tremendously grave as the question of the state and defences of the public docks at Gibraltar. I would repeat in regard to this matter what I said about the boilers, that, whatever letters or Reports these gentlemen severally or collectively may write as to the position of the docks and defences at Gibraltar, nothing can take away the direct responsibility of the Admiralty for the future policy on this question. The Admiralty through its own officers has been working nearly seven years at these docks. They were first sanctioned nearly seven years ago, and a great staff has been engaged upon the work. To suppose for a moment that after such an investigation as that which I have just described such a Committee as I have sketched can add anything to the information of the Board of Admiralty on the subject appears to me to be trifling with the question. I look to the Admiralty and its own officers for the determination of the policy which we are to pursue in reference to the docks at Gibraltar.
I come now to another point. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth will, I think, sympathise with this view—I refer to what we have been told about the policy of the Government in regard to coaling stations, which is a problem of most tremendous difficulty, but one of the most important which has engaged the attention of the Admiralty and the War Office for many years, and upon which there is a direct conflict of

775
opinion between naval and military experts. The Secretary of State for War in describing the programme which we have not yet sanctioned, and which is to be submitted for further discussion at a later date, told us that in dealing with the Army he proposed that certain of the coaling stations should be handed over to the Navy. He further hinted that he did not know what the opinion of the Admiralty was on this question, and he indicated that they had not yet consented to the proposal he had made. That was a most astounding thing for any Minister to do. The Secretary to the Admiralty has stated that this was only the personal opinion of the Secretary for War. That explanation appears to me to make matters worse, for what right has a Minister in this House, while defending the policy of the Government, to express his own personal opinion? See the astounding position in which we find ourselves. We find one Minister committing his Department to something without knowing what the opinion of the Admiralty is. I think that is very improper, whether it is his own personal opinion or not. People say that the authority of the House of Commons is diminishing, and that the power of the Cabinet is increasing, but it appears to mo that the authority of the House of Commons and the Cabinet are both disappearing. What kind of a Cabinet is it that allows a Minister to express a personal opinion which advocates one policy one night on Imperial defence and a totally different policy the next night? What becomes of that famous Joint Committee of Defence? What becomes of the Joint Committee pressed for by the President of the Council, when such a declaration is made by the Secretary for War upon a matter which is not the least important among all the questions concerning our Imperial defence?
Those who look at the Navy Estimates will notice that Vote 16, which deals with the flotilla in Australian waters, has disappeared altogether from the Estimates. Again and again during recent years I have asked the Government what was going to happen in regard to this question, and I was refused information upon it. The House has now before it Estimates in which the Vote has disappeared altogether, and no information is given.
776
I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the present position of this arrangement, and why it is that no provision has been made for it in the Estimates. Perhaps he may also be able to explain a mysterious paragraph in the memorandum about the South Australian ship "Protector," which has been lent to His Majesty's Government. I understand that this comes, under an Act of 1865, which has been adopted by an Order in Council, as a British man-of-war. I should like to know upon what conditions the ship "Protector" has been lent to His Majesty's Government.
We were also told that the scheme of merchant cruisers was to be largely extended this year, but the vote for that has almost disappeared, and only three new companies have been added. No provision is made as to arrangements with the great companies who furnish these merchant vessels. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the delay in construction in recent years, and spoke of it as being due to the engineers' "strike." That was a lock-out, and I have always held that the weakness of the Admiralty in not enforcing its penal clauses in their contracts has led to their own embarrassment. This has attracted the attention of foreign naval constructors, and they cannot understand why the Government have not the courage to enforce the penal clause in their contracts.
My last point is with regard to the Royal yacht. I do not know when the House of Commons, while considering Naval Estimates, ever had before it a story so distressing as the history of the Royal yacht. I, for one, can take no blame to myself about it, because I was one of the few Members of this House who from the beginning did not like this project for the Royal yacht. We suggested that it should have been built like the new German yacht: that it ought to be serviceable not only as a toy and a pleasure yacht, but that it should be so constructed as to be useful in time of war. If that had been done she might very safely have been entrusted to the Admiralty staff and the dockyard staff. Then the Admiralty would have had a ship which they knew all about. Otherwise, it would have been wiser to send her to a private yacht builder, whose particular business it was to build yachts,

777
and not give this delicate piece of workmanship to a staff which had never built a yacht before. We have never pressed in this House for much information about it, and I am not sure that my hon. friend the Member for Gateshead has not given us more information than the Admiralty upon it. I think it is high time that the full dockyard history of this unhappy adventure should be laid before the House of Commons. We started out with the proposal to spend something like £300,000 on this yacht, and surely that was enough for what was going to be a private yacht, even for the Sovereign. This year the total Estimate for this yacht exceeds £500,000. Surely, in any other country, such an event as this would be regarded financially as disgraceful to the administrative capacity of the Department responsible for it. But we have at least still got the control of the purse, and we should demand to know how it is that the original amount of £.300,000 for a mere pleasure yacht has mounted up in three disastrous years to something like £521,000. I trust that that information will not be refused us, and that we shall have a full history and all the reasons which have led to this unhappy result. We should also like to know whether she is going to have Belleville boilers or any other kind of water-tube boilers.
In conclusion, I want to call the serious attention of an indifferent House, and, so far as I can, of an indifferent country, to the enormous magnitude of the proposals contained in these Estimates. Some years ago Mr. Goschen apologised for the Estimates of the day, and admitted that they were colossal. Certainly they wore colossal as compared with any previous year, but they were pygmies compared with the Estimates which we have before us to-night. Many people do not appear to have the faintest notion of the magnitude of this programme. I want to bring before the House the real magnitude of the programme we are asked to express general approval of. This year the total Navy Estimates amount to nearly £31,000,000 in round numbers. I add to that amount what will be required this year, and for many years to come, under the Naval Works Acts, the sum of £2,000,000, and putting these together I call the attention of the House to this fact, that the Govern-
778
ment this year is asking for £33,000,000 sterling for naval purposes. I cannot separate the Army from the Navy so easily as the Secretary of State for War, and I must add to this gigantic total the huge figures we were discussing the other day. Roughly speaking, the normal Army Estimates are about £30,000,000, and I add to that the amount for military loans, which I take it this year will be about £1,000,000. That gives us a total for the Army of £31,000,000. This shows that the military expenditure of this country in time of peace amounts to £64,000,000 sterling for this one year. Surely, these figures are awful amounts to arrest the attention of the House and the country, more especially when I remind the House that these proposals have been laid upon the Table almost without a word of defence or explanation. I know there have been explanations of minor points, but on the whole they have been dumped down upon the Table, and not one word of the First Lord's Memorandum would lead you to suppose that they were in any way extraordinary. Let the House remember that this £64,000,000 is our war expenditure in time of peace, and takes no account whatever of the Supplementary Estimates or the cost of the war in South Africa. This is simply our own British expenditure to which I am referring. I thought when I was responsible for the biggest Estimate that had been introduced up to that time that the more we spent on our Navy the less we should have to spend on the Army—I should like to arrive at the figure which we can afford to spend on both these Services, and after spending all that is wanted for the Navy leave the rest for the Army. But the reverse has been the case. The more the expenditure on the Navy has gone up the greater has been the demand for expenditure on the Army. The increase of these Estimates began in the year 1893, and up to that point the Naval Estimates of Great Britain had reached a normal standard of about £14,000,000 per year. Later our attention was called to the fact that the next two great naval Powers of France and Russia between them were spending more upon their navies than we were. France and Russia in 1893 spent jointly on their Navies £1(1,000,000 as against our £14,240,000. That was

779
a balance which we determined to redress, and that was why our Naval Estimates were increased.
In the year 1900, the last of which I have a record, the estimates of France mounted up from £10,000,000 in 1893 to £12,000,000, and those of Russia rose proportionately from £5,000,000 to £9,000,000. In other words, while we were spending £14,000,000 in 1893, against £16,000,000 spent by France and Russia, in 1900 the joint expenditure' of France and Russia amounted to £21,000,000, to which our answer was an expenditure of £33,000,000. Therefore, instead of being £2,000,000 behind, as in 1893, we are now £12,000,000 ahead of them. These enormous Estimates, which arose out of an attempt to keep us upon an equality with France and Russia, have resulted in proposals which have put us £12,000,000 ahead, and that has been done without any explanation on the part of the Admiralty. I am aware that France is no longer in this respect the second nation, but the second nation is now the still greater friend of our own. The expenditure upon the United States Navy has leaped up from £3,000,000 to £15,000,000, but I do not need to discuss a fact like that. I have supported big Navy Estimates before, but these increases are so vast and, to the best of my belief, bound so far beyond the standard aimed at in previous years, that they ought not to be submitted to this House except upon a full declaration of what the object is, and why it is necessary to put such enormous demands before the country. Unless there has been a very great change lately I believe if you take the Estimates of last year of the four largest European navies you will find that the total is equalled by the Naval Estimates of Great Britain. That is a matter which demands some explanation. The men asked for in 1893 included a large addition which had become necessary on account of the additional ships built under the previous Naval Defence Act; and so the figure I am going to quote is not the normal figure, but part of the new increase. Well, in 1893 the number of men asked for was 76,700. This year the Government is asking for an active list of 118,635 men. That is an enormous increase. Here again I do not say that it wants justification, for I
780
think it is justified. I am giving these figures as a measure of the enormous increase which the British Navy has undergone. I maintain that this increase of the personnel is absolutely necessitated by the increase of the fleet; but it is a significant thing that in these seven years, having already begun to increase, we added 42,000 men to the active list of the Navy. About five or six years ago I obtained from the Admiralty a most interesting Return, which you will not get from. Brassey's Naval Annual, but which throws useful light on this question. That was a Return of the men on the active list of all the Navies of Europe. I remember being astounded that, even then, our active list, with a much stronger fleet, was more than equal to those of all the other European nations combined. I hope the Admiralty will not neglect any opportunity they have of finding out the active list of other navies, so that we may compare the active personnel as well as expenditure and other points.
The biggest Vote on the Navy Estimates is always the Shipbuilding Vote. It has reached portentous dimensions— £14,676,000. This is a net increase over last year of £9,274,500. Of this enormous total we are told in the First Lord's memorandum that provision for new construction alone amounts to £9,000,000. I believe I am right in saying that this is the largest total for new construction ever proposed either in this House or in the country.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Do you say it is too much?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am not saying it is too much. That is another question altogether. But it is so great that I cannot accept the hon. Member's word for it that it is not more than enough, following, as it does, on the enormous increase of last year. We are entitled to have an explanation of its necessity; nay, more, I venture to say, a defence of the magnitude of these figures. The hon. Member asked me if it is enough or not; and again I refer to the measure of the two Powers. I never committed myself to any limitation of this measure. It was a practical rule of

781
thumb measure which was adopted by successive Admiralties and by the House of Commons. I never said I was dissatisfied with that measure, or that, in a given case, I should not ask for something larger; but I ask the hon. Member to listen to this: This £9,000,000, which we are asked for for new construction, is to be set against the provision made last year in France and Russia, the two Powers in question. The new construction provided for in France in 1900, but which is not likely to be fulfilled, for I am quite sure they do not build up to their programme as we do, was £4,200,000; and in Russia £2,400,000; or a total of £6,600,000. I dwell upon this Vote of the Estimates, as I have ventured to do on similar occasions before, because I regard it as the master-Vote of all these Navy Estimates; it is the Vote upon which everything else depends. The more you swell this Vote the more you swell all the other Estimates. The serious thing for this country is that our liability is not to be measured by the £31,000,000 in this year's Estimates. I have examined the proportion between the Shipbuilding Vote and the total Navy Estimates for many years, and I find that, as regularly as possible, in normal times the proportion is as one to three. Suppose you do not increase the Shipbuilding Vote at all, what will be the consequence? You will have the Navy Estimates very soon up to £42.000,000 a year, instead of £32,000,000. When the hon. Member challenges me to say whether these Estimates are too much, my answer is that they are so vast that they ought not to be submitted to the House or accepted by the House until a full explanation of all the reasons making them necessary has been given. I say that no such information has been vouchsafed in the Estimates themselves, in the statement of the First Lord, or in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. We have not yet had what we are entitled to have; the House has no right to sanction such expenditure as this without further information. The other day the Army programme was hung up as a consequence of an arrangement made by both sides of the House. I cannot believe that, in the limited time at our
782
disposal, we can make a complete investigation of the proposals of the Admiralty; and some similar device will have to be resorted to in regard to the Navy Votes.
I put this question to the hon. Gentleman and to others who may sympathise with him. Is there to be no limit to these Estimates of our naval expenditure? Are you to go on increasing your Navy and your Army expenditure—because I refuse to separate them? Is there to be no limit to this vast military expenditure in time of peace, because the present war has nothing to do with it? No doubt the tax-paying powers of the country will some day set a limit; but, even apart from that—and here I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth—even if our resources were illimitable, as they are obviously coming to a limit, at least all the authorities tell us so—I deny that it is the right or the duty of this country to go on, unaided, bearing this tremendous Imperial burden of naval expenditure. Why, in the First Lord's statement there is a paragraph about the gunboat "Protector," which the South Australian colony placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Government for service in China. That has been made an enormous deal of, just as all the other assistance given us by the colonies and individuals has been. But this Government seems to blind itself to the fact, and the country also knows it not, that this noble Navy of ours, which I want to see always the strongest on earth, and always in the hands of a Government which will use it for justice—that this noble Navy is as much the servant of our self-governing colonies—I say nothing of the others—as it is of the people of England, Scotland, or Ireland. The people of Ireland complain, to my mind not quite justly, of being overtaxed. Their complaint. so far as it is well founded, may be made also by all the poorer districts in this country, including the poorer parts of London. But Ireland has a much better ground of complaint than this. Ireland is notoriously poorer than the rest of the Empire—poorer that Canada or Australia, man for man. But Ireland, out of its poverty, is compelled to pay for the naval defence of these great and prosperous colonies of Canada and Australia. And what is an Irish griev-

783
ance is also a grievance to Scotland. The poorest mill girl who drinks tea in my constituency has to pay for the free naval defence of the millionaire squatters of Australia and the millionaire timber-men of Canada. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.] Yes; the Secretary for the Admiralty has admitted it, and it cannot be denied. The hon. and gallant Gentleman—the highest authority in this House, and there are not many equal to him out of it—has shown us the true meaning of naval defence, and I could quote words of his own in support of the proposition I have made. When the hon. Member challenges me to say whether these Estimates are too high, I challenge him to say whether we are going on for ever adding to the expenditure for the Navy without making the faintest suggestion that these great self-governing colonies might contribute from their wealth to the Navy, which now is supported by the farthings of the poor as much as by the pounds of the rich in the United Kingdom.
*SIR JOHN COLOMB: The question raised in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's speech is one that requires the fullest measure of consideration and discussion. I may frankly say that I feel very strongly, and have done so for more years than I care to reckon, that in looking to the future and to the responsibilities cast upon us, we have approached a time when we must ask this question—"Can we go on indefinitely paying for the defence of an Empire which covers all parts of the world out of the resources of an island in but a corner of it?" I am a true Imperialist—I have always been that; but I hate the Imperialism which perorates about the Empire and refuses to face the real question of making the arrangements for its common security a matter of practical and united action of all its parts. I am strongly tempted to say more on this point, but I will not. Nor will I dwell on the way in which we work Imperial defence so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, on a system of water-tight departments. It is not only a wasteful but a pernicious system. We have Army Estimates brought forward one night, and we are
784
told to exclude all considerations of the Navy on these War Estimates. Then we have on another night a Vote of £31,000,000 presented to be spent on the Navy, but you must not take that in relation to the expenditure on the Army. All this will not be remedied until we have a Minister responsible for the general principles of defence of the Empire, saying what is necessary to be spent by the Army and the Navy.
Leaving that question aside, a strong sense of duty and of responsibility to all ranks of the naval service compels me to ask the indulgence of the House while I endeavour, as briefly as I can, to refer to a question of paramount importance, and which is rending opinion in the Navy in twain—I allude to the training of the personnel of the Fleet. Within a period of time as short as half the lifetime of a man an absolutely complete transformation has taken place in our ships, and in everything that affects the personnel. Owing to the advance in mechanical science, and the application of electricity and steam to ships and to everything appertaining to them—the science of engineering being cosmopolitan—all nations have been brought to the same level. Therefore, we ought to assume that, all these things being equal on the surface of the sea, and producing the same effect, success or failure, when the conflict comes, will depend upon the adaption by a perfect training of character, and in professional knowledge—the perfect training, in fact, of what my right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean has called "the human element."
I do entreat the indulgence of the House if I endeavour to bring before hon. Members the condition to which the personnel of the Navy has come in the opinion of its own officers, under the conditions forced upon it by the transformation to which I have referred. We must remember that the senior naval officers of to-day imbibed their ideas of training and methods of fighting from conditions that no longer exist, but have entirely passed away. That is to a large extent the reason for the extraordinary differences of opinion which exist in all sections of the Navy at the present time in regard to this important question. I wish to explain

785
that I am not approaching this question as a captious critic. One of the reasons why this question of training has been neglected, is that we have had to alter our naval machinery and keep it running at the same time. I do not wish to hold this Admiralty or this Government, or any other during the last thirty-five years, responsible for the fact that our naval training is at present exceedingly confused. And for this reason, that both the political officers and the naval lords at the Admiralty are so pressed with the routine work in keeping the machine going that they have not time to think out the great problems, or to do more than keep abreast with current business. Admiral Sir John Hopkins, a very distinguished officer, a late Controller of the Navy, and Lord of the Admiralty, has declared within the last two or three months that—
"Those who administer the Service have quite enough to do without initiating reforms. Nor can their energies he better occupied than in dealing with the multifarious daily duties devolving on them, which, I can assure you, I have found, from some personal experience at the Admiralty, leave little or no time for initiating reforms or improvements in the many subjects dealt with."
Every naval officer who has had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with Admiralty administrators knows that twenty years ago these were overworked in keeping up the current business; and I wish to draw attention to the fact that they are overworked now, and have not time to give adequate consideration to the problems facing us. Fifteen years ago the Admiralty Board consisted of eight—political officers and naval Lords. Since that time the personnel of the Navy has doubled, the annual expenditure on the Shipbuilding Vote has tripled, you have added vast responsibilities in connection with naval works and the arrangements for carrying them out, and what have you added in the way of help for the transaction of all that accumulated business? What have you done? You have simply added one private secretary to the staff of the First Lord of the Admiralty. What has happened under these circumstances is that your present system of training the Navy can be only described as a patchwork plan rather than any system at all. That is the result.
786
I daresay that hon. Members are fully aware that in the Press this question of the training of the Navy has been much argued, but it has been entirely confined to one branch, and that is the executive branch, which represents only one-fourth of the whole force. There are four branches—the executive branch, the marine branch, the engineer branch, and the civil branch. The civil branch embraces three sub-divisions—the medical, the chaplains, and the accountants and stores. The conditions of naval construction and the changes which science has rendered necessary do not affect the medical or the chaplains sub-divisions, or the method of keeping accounts and stores. Therefore I will eliminate the civil branch and consider the three remaining branches. The great change of conditions from the old state of things, to new machinery has had the effect of approximating the duties of the seamen to that of the marines. These changes have accentuated and extended the possible scope of marines' work and their responsibilities in a ship of war. The education and training of the Marine Artillery and Infantry officers is costly and elaborate, but specially designed to unfit them to keep watch or do general ships' duties. That was foretold forty years ago to a Commission, not by a naval expert, but by Mr.Lindley, who said that the Admiralty were shutting their eyes to the consequences to the personnel of steam machinery. That advice was not attended to and we have gone on up to the present time without fully recognising that fact. But the supreme question at the bottom of all this naval training is the relation of the executive and engineer branches to the working of the ship and to each other. That is a question of supreme moment. The old duties of the executive were really to operate through and by manual labour, organised with the highest skill, in order to drive the ship through the water, and to use effectively all the weapons and appliances of the ship. Now the executive officers simply turn a handle or call down a voice tube to the engineer, whose machinery does the work. The real duty now of the executive branch is simply to direct and apply with courage, with promptness, and complete skill the sum of all that is provided by steam, electricity, and the

787
machinery of the engineer's staff. When you come to consider the tremendous increase in the cost of a ship and the very much greater factor each ship is than it was before in a nation's Navy, the question of the education and training of the men who are to manage that ship is a much more serious one than it ever was before; and this greatly intensifies the importance and the gravity of the selection and training of the executive officers who have to wield this enormous power. The captain who wields that enormous power provided by the engineers and the machinery must be fit to be a captain while he is full of vigour both in mind and body; the probability is that if you cannot produce that man before he is thirty competent to do the work you will never produce him at all. When you remember the limits of age, the short period you have in which to select the raw material in the shape of the boy, and train him up to the finished article, with all the experience and aptitude and knowledge that is necessary for a captain, you can, see at once how enormously important is the question of the sort of training you should give to the executive officer who is to handle your ship in the day of battle. The important thing to bear in mind in regard to the difference between the education problem of the executive officers and of the engineers is that in the case of the executive branch it is a question of the readjustment of the training suited to old conditions to the new conditions. The problem of the training of the engineer is different, and it is now really a question of how to develop and improve the character of the training to conditions which have not changed, but are constantly advancing.
The question of executive training has been brought to an issue by the putting out of commission, owing to the exigencies of the South African War, of what was called the Training Squadron in October, 1899. That was a squadron of ships fully rigged, with auxiliary steam power, and it was kept in commission up to October, 1899, as a necessary education for producing in your executive officers qualities which were considered essential to command a ship. That was the object of this Training Squadron which has now been put out of commission.
788
I want to know if we are going to be left without that Training Squadron? What is the policy of the Admiralty on this question? Is this valuable process of developing the faculties of the executive officer to go by the board or is it to be resuscitated? I should like to show what importance has been attached by many officers to this question, and I will give some very brief extracts upon this subject. Lord Charles Beresford writes—
"Training under masts and yards is valuable for the qualities produced. It makes men thinking beings instead of well-drilled machines."
Commander Nicholson says—
"I entirely disagree mast and yards are gone. I think we cannot do without them."
Commander Napier, a brilliant officer who has been selected to command a torpedo destroyer flotilla, gives it as his opinion that—
"Seamen who have undergone mast and sail training are undoubtedly superior men to those who have not. Maximum of efficiency should be aimed at. British seamen should be finest form of seamen afloat."
Then we have Admiral Sir Frederick Richards, who retired a short time ago, saying—
"I hope soon to see the companies returning to their proper ships (old Training Squadron). You have got an established system. You impart by sea-going training ship qualities of nerve, steadiness of head, and quickness of eye which you can impart in no other way."
On the other hand, you have Admiral Sir John Hopkins saying that such training is "not one whit necessary." Then you have Admiral Sir Anthony Hoskins, a most able officer, late Lord of the Admiralty, who says—
"I do not see how naval officer is going to exist without it."
Admiral Sir Michael Culme-Seymour gives his opinion as follows—
"Surely the natural way to train men is to train them in the ship in which they are going to serve. All my commands have been in masted ships, but conviction forced upon me that masts and sails are gone for ever."
Admiral Sir Gerard Noel, a very distinguished officer, writes—
"Discipline of masts and sails must not be relinquished until equally effective substitute is found."

789
On the other hand, Captain Henderson says—
"Firm conviction all mast and sail training must be abolished. Only modern seamanship should be taught—helm, compass, and lead, boat, anchor and cable work, splicing and seizing of hemp and wire, fitting, rigging, and of sheers, derricks, coaling appliances, etc."
Admiral Noel writes—
"In sailing ships younger officers are in really responsible positions."
Admiral Sir Vesey Fitzgerald says that it is not even desirable to have seamen as of old. Sir Anthony Hoskins says—
"The whole thing (question training squadron) ought to be worked out in the most careful way by the strongest Committee that the Admiralty can institute."
I think that gives sufficient evidence to the House from the highest authorities you can get in the Navy as to masts and yards training. The conflict rages, but the Admiralty do not toll us or the service whether they mean to resuscitate the training squadron or not. I think we are entitled, in view of the opinions I have read, to demand a specific answer to this question—is the policy of the Admiralty that the training squadron shall be revived, or is it not? If the Admiralty are unable to make up their mind it would be bettor to have a Commission upon it to hear both sides. What I say is that the abolition of that squadron has suddenly brought the Admiralty and the service to the parting of the ways. If this training is necessary to cultivate the qualities in the men who are to command your ships, then you have no business to withhold it. It was in the year 1870 you had your first Committee on the higher education of naval officers, and it resulted in the great extension of the academic and theoretical side of education. It is a strange thing that you never touched the education of the higher officers. The great problems of strategy and tactics have never been touched upon at all until this year. The German and other foreign navies take care to educate their senior officers in the study of naval history and naval strategy, and all their studies are based upon British naval history and strategy. I can hardly congratulate the Admiralty
790
upon the extent of the step they have at last taken by providing £200 a year for this purpose. There was another Committee appointed in 1875 and again in 1886, and only last week a Report was issued on the training of young naval officers. Then follows a new order from the Admiralty which has been long wished for, and agitated for, to secure more sea experience for the young officers. I find that amongst the important changes which have been made the Admiralty have taken out from the seamanship examination for young officers all reference to masts and yards and rigged ships. I presume from that that the policy of the Admiralty is to abolish the training squadron. I also notice that, before an officer will be allowed to act as a lieutenant, he must serve six months as a sub-lieutenant at sea, and receive a certificate from the captain that he is as fit to take charge of a watch at sea as a lieutenant, and to perform the duties of that rank. The gist of the complaints of the Navy is that the training is too academic and theoretical, and not sufficiently practical. I will just give two or three opinions upon this point. Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, who is now going to take command in Chinese waters, is strongly against the present system, and he protests against the young men being kept on shore so much learning mathematics. He says—
"Problems of navigation require very moderate amount of mathematical knowledge. Rely on tables. I have never met a naval officer whose mental faculties were strengthened by course of mathematical study. Necessary to put a stop to making proficiency in the 'courses' a passport to promotion."
Lieutenant Carlyon Bellairs, who acted as a correspondent for one of the papers during the Naval Manoeuvres, and no mean authority, writes—

"It is judgment and eyesight wanted, not nursing and academic education. In last manoeuvres we never sighted a torpedo boat, yet in ten days the B. fleet sunk one of its own destroyers, the' Minerva' fought an action with three phantom torpedo boats, and we were reported by our own signal stations as enemy's cruisers, torpedo boats, and so on."
Admiral Sir Edmund Freemantle says that—
"our naval officers are somewhat deficient in technical scientific knowledge";

791
and Admiral Sir Vesey Hamilton says—
"Admiral called on to support diplomatist more likely to do so effectually from knowledge of history and foreign languages than mathematics."
Admiral Fitzgerald says—
"Midshipmen instead of spending best hours of day in school room should be on deck and boats learning to command men, etc."
That shows the question on the academic side. The fact is that there is too much shore work, and not enough sea work, in the education of our naval officers. Admiral Hopkins declares—
"To make seamen is to make the seaman's home the ocean. He ought to be moving about it."
Admiral Bridge's opinion is that "shore imitations of weapons and equipment is not training men in ships they will have to fight" Admiral Sir N. Bowden Smith thinks "men-of-war's men are, as a rule, the worst boat sailors in the world." Lieutenant Bosanquet, a promising young officer of great scientific ability, says, in referring to the deterioration of the young officer of the present day—
"He is dry nursed for five years and receives complex education in gunnery and seamanship, but does not have schooling in sailing ships. Only question of time for deterioration now apparent in officer to be apparent in man."
Admiral Vesey Hamilton's opinion is—
"I say the system of harbour time is certainly a scandal and disgrace."
I will sum up with two or three words. The controversy in the service over its own training is the result of the conservative instinct of one service clinging to what is old, and being very suspicious of what is new. The controversy may be put in a nutshell in three questions. (1) What is a seaman now? (2) What is the work he has to do? (3) And how is he to be trained to do it? The traditional seaman we all know. We know what he had to do, and how splendidly he did it. But the training which is declared to be necessary by distinguished naval officers is wholly different from that now in vogue. Admiral Fremantle says—
"Modern seamen must more and more merge in mechanics. This means entire change in training system."
792
Admiral Fitzgerald says—
"Battling with the elements is done by-engineers and stokers."
Captain Henderson declares—
"Blue jacket should be trained to be rough mechanic."
Admiral Hoskins says—
"You cannot teach all men to be excellent shots, and you cannot get ammunition to do it. The man behind the gun is employed principally in working winches and levers."
These opinions seem really to mean that the executive branch must gravitate towards the engineering branch. It may be true as regards the men, but it cannot possibly be true with regard to the executive officers. The training in the engine-room will be no training to produce those necessary characteristics in the men who are required to command our ships. Keen eyesight in light and darkness, promptness of decision in the presence of the unexpected—these are the qualities essential to the captain of a warship, and they must be cultivated by constant practice and observation on the bridge, and not in the engine-room. In regard to the training of these officers, I trust I have said enough to show that it requires more attention than it seems to receive at the hands of the Admiralty. Admiral Henderson was more than justified when he said—
"I think our training system throughout wants revision."
Admiral Bowden Smith surely takes the true view when he declares—
"I do not see how you can consider the training of seamen apart from the rest of the ship's company."
In any case the perfect adaptation of the "human element" to the present conditions of sea warfare is vital to the existence of our Empire. This is a question of the system of selection and training, and it concerns the whole Navy,. and not merely one particular branch of it. If it is true that the Lords of the Admiralty have no time to look into so momentous and grave a question as-this, and if the adaptation of the "human element" to modern conditions is a question which the Admiralty cannot find time to settle, then I think it ought to be referred to a Royal Commission.
*MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I rise for the purpose of saying a few words upon the Boiler Committee's Report. L felt sorry that such a Committee should have been appointed, and that such a Report should be issued upon the British Navy. Nevertheless, the Report is there, and it contains a most damning story of the condition of the British Navy at this moment. Why was that Committee necessary? When the Admiralty entered into the idea of substituting water-tube boilers in their magnificent ships I said, and I say now, that they were, ruining their ships, and the Report, I am sorry to say, has verified the view. Why did they do that? Why did they enter into this arena of exploded engineering? Water-tube boilers are no new thing. They were a primitive mode of raising steam in bygone years. Does any engineer in this House or in Great Britain think that if the old fathers of engineering— the Napiers, the Scotts, the Dennys, the Elders, and all our great engineering galaxy—had seen any advantages in water-tube boilers they would not have adopted them? They certainly would. The water-tube boiler is a primitive article indeed. If the Admiralty officials — I am not imputing any blame, I shall leave the responsibility to be brought home to them by the House at some time to come—had exercised a little wisdom and caution, and had inquired into what the water-tube boiler had been for marine purposes, they would have had a story something like what I shall tell you in a few brief words.
I shall mention to the House just a few of the attempts to introduce water-tube boilers into the mercantile marine, and I think it is well that the House should know that when this new-fangled notion —I call it nothing else, for it is not pure engineering—was adopted by the Admiralty it was not a thing of the present day. About forty or fifty years ago Mr. Rowan, a great engineer of Glasgow, had the idea that water-tube boilers were the boilers. He fitted them into a vessel called the "Propontis," and what was the result? The boilers exploded and killed many men, and many were scalded. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing question at all. This is a national matter. This is not a party matter. This is a matter that should go to the heart of the
794
British nation, which has to pay millions of money for ships and boilers which you cannot depend upon. What is the use of your ships? Do not let me see any hon. Member laughing. This is a serious matter. I come now to the vessels I saw myself. I come to the "Mark Anthony" and the "Fairy Dell"—vessels which were built thirty-two years ago. They were fitted with what was considered the best water-tube boiler of the day, known as Howard's boiler. There they are again —men scalded, and boiled and injured The owner of the "Mark Anthony was brought to grief and ruined. I shall give another illustration from the history of water-tube boilers. I come now to the late Guion Company of Liverpool. Their superintending engineer had the idea that water-tube boilers should be introduced, and they were fitted in the "Montana" and the "Dakota." They Were large American passenger-carrying boats. What happened? They were both absolute failures. The boilers were taken out of the vessels with disastrous results to the Guion Company, financially and otherwise. I shall come still further down, and take the "Norman Isles," a boat which was built at Sunderland not-long ago. I believe the builder of the boat is an hon. Member of this House. She was 0,000 or 7.000 tons. She was fitted with Babcock and Wilcox boilers. What happened? She did not complete her first voyage. She had to come home to England. I tendered for the new boilers of the type so much condemned by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Babcock and Wilcox boilers were taken out. and cylindrical boilers were fitted in, with the result of greater economy, safety, and efficiency being obtained. I come now to the Belleville type. It is a very old-fashioned type of French boiler. There is not much difference in the whole lot of them. That boiler was much lauded in this House in former years by Secretaries and First Lords of the Admiralty. That boiler was fitted into a vessel called the "Ohio." That vessel left Hull for America. What happened? Several tubes burst and some men were scalded. The boilers were taken out of her and others put in and she has been doing her work splendidly since.
I shall now come down to what occurred a few weeks ago. What do we find now? I

795
blush—I think shame—to read the list of the Admiralty vessels that are now lying in our dockyards crippled and useless, and although the hon. Member who represents the Admiralty says the word scrap-iron should not be used, I would ask, What do you call the stuff from the "Hermes"? Is not that scrap-iron? What about the "Europa"? What about all your expense and your vessels lying crippled? If you do not understand 'what scrap-iron is it is time you went into a shipyard to sec what it means. Why has this great calamity befallen the British Navy? I call it nothing else than a great calamity. I, as an old engineer, can fully realise the great calamity that has overtaken our fleet by the generators that are therein. I will show you in a minute exactly why it has arisen. I have here the Boiler Committee's Report. The Committee sat in 1892. and the Report was issued in 1893. I want to bring this home to the country from one end to the other, and I want to know the reason why this has taken place. I want the House to note clearly that the Report was issued in 1893, and then you can apportion the responsibility on whom you may. The Committee recommend the fitting of tubulous boilers in vessels for experimental purposes. Then mark this, for it is the crux of the whole question—
"It is considered that only those tubulous boilers that are tilted with straight tubes, arranged so as to be readily cleaned and examined, should be considered as suitable for trial with the view, if found satisfactory, to their being fitted in the larger class of warships."
That is the recommendation of the 1893 Committee. "So as to be readily cleaned and examined!" Where is the water-tube boiler which you can clean and examine readily? I know of none. You can't do it. You can't do it in the Belleville or the Babcock and Wilcox boiler. I defy any engineer to say how he can examine it. This Committee guarded itself in a very scientific way. My point-is this—Why was that Committee's Report ignored? I believe that at that time the orders were actually given out for Belleville boilers for the "Powerful" and the "Terrible." After the boilers were put into these cruisers they found what they were worth in the results of both ships. The Committee recommended
796
strongly what was to be done, but what do we find? We find that, instead of Proceeding cautiously, there is a continuous ordering of French boilers. We find not only that, but also that orders came from Admiralty officials that firms tendering for cruisers and battleships and engines had as a sine quá non to fit up machinery to make these water-tube boilers. I never heard the like of it in all my engineering experience, extending over half a century. The firms were put to an expense of £10,000 or £12,000 to provide machinery for the making of these boilers which this Report condemns.
My sole interest in this matter is what I call the national interest. I have always looked upon this question, as both sides-of the House will bear me out, as free entirely from party politics, and as it affects the safety of our Empire, the strength of our first line of defence. But it may be asked, Why did the Admiralty adopt these boilers? Why did they plunge so eagerly in and tit sixty or seventy vessels with these boilers at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds? They relied on M. Belleville, in Paris. I do not blame him. He is a smart business man, who came over to this country with his tempting wares, and for want of a little caution and inquiry to get to the bottom of the whole thing on the part of the Admiralty, he has exploited John Bull to the tune of a quarter of a million for royalties, let alone the cost of making the boilers, for they are-far dearer than the old ordinary boilers which have given such satisfaction in the mercantile marine all over the world. Ships with the ordinary boilers have run thousands of miles in storm and shine and have never come to grief. You cannot do that with your water-tube boilers. I challenged the Admiralty years ago to run a cruiser over the Atlantic- at full speed, and they would not do it. I shall tell you why. If they had attempted to fire the whole of the water-tube boilers at one time, and to take the maximum power out of the engines, the boilers would have come to grief before the ship had been ton hours at sea. Now, forsooth, we are brought face to face with this sorrowful: document. I don't wish to be too technical. I am speaking to gentlemen— some of whom are engineers, but the

797
majority, I daresay, are not. Some time ago I wrote a little paragraph to enlighten hon. Members that the cause of the failures of these boats I have enumerated in bygone years is exactly the same as now in connection with the warships. I stated in that paragraph that the principle of these boilers is opposed to perfect circulation, and that no fittings, automatic or otherwise, will conquer the natural law of danger inherent in their design. I sincerely hope that I have not been too technical. I say briefly that the water-tube boiler for marine purposes cannot work. You cannot get circulation to ensure safety. The Report of the 1892 Committee says exactly the same thing. The Committee which recently inquired into the subject brought a great amount of engineering science and practical knowledge to bear upon it, and here is their first objection to these boilers—
"The circulation of water is defective and uncertain, because of the resistance offered by the great length of tube between the feed and steam collectors, the friction of the junction boxes, and the small holes in the nipples between the feed collector and the generator tubes, which also are liable to be obstructed, and may thus become a source of danger."
That is the crux of the whole thing. The Committee also say:—
"The water gauges not indicating with certainty the amount of water in the boiler. This has led to serious accidents."
And so they go on to condemn the boilers. I don't want to labour the subject. I come now to this point: What is to be done to get these ships of ours into first-class steaming condition? It is a patent fact, known to all the world, that you cannot steam your ships full speed. You may creep along at 7, 8, 9, or 10 knots or you may even get up a spurt of 15 knots, but what is the use of designing a boat for 22 knots if you cannot take 15 out of her? That is playing with engineering. The Boiler Committee has unequivocally condemned the boilers. I am not going into the question of who is to blame for it, but I am going into this question. It may be said, rightly up to a certain point, "Oh, we cannot take the boilers out of those ships they are in. It would entail such a delay to our ships, and cost such a lot of money!" All these excuses will be brought forward, no doubt. I ask this question, Is the Board
798
of Admiralty justified in using boilers that have been condemned by their own Committee? I am now coming to the practical point of view, and I am going to speak more directly to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Admiralty. If I were in his position I would come down to this House, and I would stand up there like a man. I would take the House into my confidence, I would frankly admit that we had made a huge blunder, and I would tell the whole story from beginning to end. If you want to be successful when you are in difficulties, all you have to do is to grasp the nettle. I have had my difficulties and mishaps, but I did not run away from them. I did not shelter myself behind a piece of paper or anything of that sort. I have great faith in the hon. Member the present Secretary to the Admiralty. I believe he will do good work. I want him to grasp this water-tube boiler question in a practical way for the safety of the country. I want him to take ship after ship and have the boilers taken out. It would not take so much money as you imagine. I say take these boilers out of His Majesty's Royal yacht first. For the sake of King and Queen that boat must not go to sea with condemned boilers. I sincerely hope the Admiralty will rise to the occasion, and frankly admit that they have made a colossal mistake. Come down to the House and ask for the money to repair the blunder. We are always generous to the Navy. We vote you millions. Do you expect us to be satisfied with ships which cannot steam, and which have boilers that burst? No, you want the best for your money, and you have not got it, I am sorry to say. I warn the House, and I warn the hon. Member the Secretary to the Admiralty that if you experiment more with these water-tube boilers you will come to grief again. You will burn twice the quantity of coal, and you will require 30 or 40 per cent. more firemen, as the Committee found when on board the Cunard s.s. "Saxonia" the other day. That vessel's steaming was an object lesson to the Admiralty.
In conclusion, I say to this House— for the sake of our Navy, for the sake of our first line of defence, for the sake of the protection of our great mercantile marine—we must have the best ships

799
that can be obtained, ships which can be depended upon to steam at their full speed, or to go slow as may be wished. But don't let the amour propre of any individual or body of individuals imperil the national safety.
*MR. FITZALAN HOPE: I hope I may be excused for touching on a matter which is not purely naval, but I feel that in doing so there are several difficulties in the way. The subject I allude to is the relationship between the Treasury and the Admiralty. I would rather say the bearing upon the Admiralty of the present financial system of the country. The difficulties I feel are these. In the first place, I quite admit that the Admiralty is less subordinate to the financial system of the country than is the War Office, owing to the fact that the great constructing works are largely exempt from the ordinary financial system of the country. In the second place, when we have in power a Government like the present, that knows its duty and does it, the evils of a bad system are minimised; but surely what we should like is not so much a system that is bad bolstered up by the ability of individual Ministers as a system that can support whatever Minister may be in power. I should like to read a few words to the House, although they are familiar already to a large number of Members:—
"There is the Treasury, and I say that the exercise of its powers in governing every department of State is not for the public benefit. The Treasury has obtained a position in regard to the rest of the Departments of the Government that the House of Commons obtained in the time of the Stuart Dynasty. It has the power of the purse, and by exercising the power of the purse it claims a voice in all decisions of administrative authority and policy. I think that much delay and many doubtful resolutions have been the result of the peculiar position which through many generations the Treasury has occupied."
I understand that by the rules and customs of the House I may not say who uttered these words, or in what place they were uttered, but they wore uttered at a time of great national emergency and peril as an excuse for and an explanation of the deplorable situation in which the country found itself some fifteen months ago.
I do not know that the public in this country at all realise what Treasury
800
control means. I remember having read in a novel of a club started by certain young men with the express object of I combining parsimony and profligacy. That exactly represents the present financial system of this country. Take any Department you wish, and in one branch of it you will find everything at a standstill. The work necessary to be done has been too much for the original Estimate, and no Supplementary Estimate can be obtained. In another branch of that Department you will find officials tumbling over one another in order to get rid of their balance before the' 51st March. What is the result? The result is to deaden responsibility and crush out initiative even on the part of the very best officials. No man in charge of a branch of any Department in the State has any incentive to economy, because he knows if he saves, his work and the work of his Department will not benefit, and that the only result will be an infinitesimal reduction of the National Debt. On the other hand, in some other branch you will find another official who knows from sad experience that he can get no more money and he makes no attempt. He spends what he can get, then throws up the sponge and makes no further effort. Individual cases may not be very serious. It does not matter very much, for example, whether the lavatory accommodation at some public office is not based on the most modern system, but when money is asked for an experiment which may decide the result of a very great war, and when it is denied, that is a matter to which the House and the country should not be indifferent. You cannot, of course have Departments submitting uncontrolled or unchecked Estimates. If that were to be done a reaction would set in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to check the total for each Department, and I would earnestly submit—and my opinion is shared by those who know much more about the subject—that the practical control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be confined to the totals only, and that, at any rate, the heads of the great spending Departments should have practically a free hand in spending the money given them by Parliament to the best of their judgment and according to the advice of their

801
experts. Of course, if anything of this kind were to be carried out it would be an enormous change, but in the meantime I venture to submit three suggestions.
In the first place I would submit that a department should have the power of meeting a deficit in one branch out of a surplus in another, I know that in the Admiralty and the War Office this may be done, but only by the authority of the Treasury, and I venture to suggest that instead of the authority of the Treasury it should be done by the Order of the King in Council. Secondly, I would venture to suggest that the First Lord of the Admiralty as well as the Secretary of State for War should have some power of meeting an expected expenditure during the recess on their own responsibility. Either you might vote a sum unappropriated which they might on their own responsibility appropriate during the recess, or you might under certain conditions give them the power to raise a certain sum under certain strict conditions. In the third place I would submit that the unexpended balances on all works of construction should be carried over from one financial year to the next. I made this suggestion to a gentleman of great experience, and his answer was. "Young man, you are laying hands on the Ark of the Covenant." Well, Germany has got rid of the Ark of the Covenant altogether and is not a bit the worse. In Germany, in all non-recurrent expenditure as well as in many items for recurrent expenditure, the balances are carried over from one financial year to the next, and in that way those responsible for the management of the department can watch the markets, and buy the right thing in the right way at the right time, and bring to the service of the State the ordinary business methods by which commercial concerns prosper. I know I shall be met with the argument of the constitutional control of Parliament, but what does that control now amount to? Of course there is the Public Acts Committee, but that represents consideration of money that has been expended, not control over money to be expended. If we take the theory and compare it with the practice, we will find that while the theory is complete in practice, the very last thing that is ordinarily discussed is finance. Attacks are made on the responsible
802
heads of departments on the Estimates, but if any attempt were made to argue the Estimates on financial grounds it would be resented by a large number of hon. Members eager to disburthen themselves of all sorts of ideas which have nothing to do with finance. The German system preserves full and adequate control. The accounts show the amount of the Vote of the previous year, the amount brought forward, the amount required for the year out of the revenue of the year, and every information that may possibly be required, and if it is found that the system is being abused, and that large balances are being improperly accumulated, the remedy is simple, namely, to cut down the Vote for the next year. In offering these remarks to the House I must disclaim any idea of an attack on the permanent officials of the Treasury. We have every reason to be proud of them with all their long traditions, their unsullied probity, and their whole-hearted devotion to the State. It is the fault not of the men, but of the system, although in time of war men rise and overcome the system. It is not what is refused in time of war, but the parings and the clippings in times of peace that make the mischief. Many a hundred pounds denied in 1894 meant thousands spent in 1900. The officials live in an atmosphere of their own. They never get directly into touch with the men and things about which they have to decide, and the Treasury officials are two removes from the men and matters they have to decide. The system they have to administer is permeated with the traditions of the Manchester period, and in the course of continual refusal they have become a kind of embodiment of the universal negative.
I venture to submit these suggestions to the House as palliatives only. In my humble opinion we shall not have adequate security for the administration of the Navy until we trust the First Lord of the Admiralty to spend the money that Parliament gives him as his judgment and conscience think fit, in his own way and in his own time.
MR. KEARLEY: My hon. I friend the Member for Dundee stated

803
that the sum of money taken this year for new expenditure is larger than ever, but at all events it is some consolation to us to know that the greater portion of it is going to be spent on the completion of work already in hand. As regards the remainder of the sum which represents what is called the new programme, it only amounts to half a million, and I think we need not pay any serious attention to that programme. There are thirty vessels contemplated in it; but this policy of putting down before the House of Commons a number of vessels to be built that will not be touched —and the Admiralty know it—at the end of the year no longer misleads anyone. We have become thoroughly accustomed to it. It will be time enough to consider the new proposals when the keel plates have been laid down. Two of the ships voted last year were only laid down ten days ago.
Now I wish to say a word about these arrears. The hon. Gentleman who is now responsible for the Admiralty in this House, and of whom we have great expectations, frankly admitted the state of affairs when he told us that of the twenty-three battleships voted since the completion of the "Majestic" class only five had been completed. I believe it is true that four are commissioned, but one certainly is not. If we consider the dates when these various ships were laid down, it is certain that there ought to be five more of these battleships completed before the end of the present year, and there ought to be added to our Navy ten valuable first class battleships, all of which have been delayed. This delay does not only extend to battleships. The hon. Gentleman has told us that since the completion of the "Diadem" class thirty cruisers had been voted, and a great many of them ought to be ready by now. We get the same explanation year by year. Mr. Goschen one year took refuge in the engineers' strike, which was undoubtedly a factor at that time, but it is trotted out again by the hon. Member as being still a factor. I think the strike ought now to be struck off the effective list, because, whatever effect it may have had in 1897, we are now through other causes going from bad to worse, and the delay which might be considered valid in the cir-
804
cumstances of 1897 has now become absolutely chronic. This delay applies to all kinds of material and to all ships, whether they are being built in His Majesty's yards or elsewhere. It applies to armour, machinery, guns, and hulls. The other evening the hon. Gentleman informed us that armour was mainly responsible for the delay. We know that in recent years there have been three changes in armour, but it must be I said that the Admiralty themselves are! mainly responsible for the existing delays. They do not give their specifications out until months after a ship has been laid down, and consequently the armour manufacturers have no opportunity to complete the armour in such a time as would be necessary to enable the ship to be finished at the earliest possible moment. Therefore the Admiralty are not entitled to say that all these delays are attributable to the contractors. Many of them are due to the methods— or rather the lack of method—of the Admiralty.
The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to console us with the statement that we still hold our lead in expeditious shipbuilding. In 1894 we did pride ourselves that we could build battleships quicker than any other nation. That was then true, but that disadvantage has altogether disappeared, and we are lucky indeed to-day if we can get a battleship completed within four years of its being laid down, whereas in 1894 we turned out two of our finest ships, the "Majestic" and the "Magnificent," in two years. At the present moment Germany is rapidly giving us the go-by, and if we drag along in this way I am confident that in two or three years time we will find that Germany has gone ahead of us. Germany has ample resources and also the determination to put things through in a practical, businesslike manner. Russia, which we do not take to be a nation of enormous energy, has turned out a cruiser, the largest ever launched, in thirty months. We are not able to turn out a cruiser of such magnitude in thirty months. We would want three or four years. We are told that it is the English contractors that bring about all these delays, but it is curious that a British contractor can build for foreign nations ships of almost identical size in

805
two years. The Japanese have had completed in this country by contract two of the finest battleships afloat, and they were delivered in a little over two years. Why cannot we get similar work from the contractors? It is not that they are not patriotic; it is the Admiralty themselves that are mainly responsible. They will not put orders for machinery in hand until the hull has been building for a long time, and they delay their specifications for armour and so on. Howover, it is a very simple matter if the contractors are at fault. It is the easiest thing in the world to make the date on which a ship is to be delivered part of the contract. What is the difficulty in the way of doing that? At all events the danger is fully recognised in the country. Supposing we are suddenly plunged into a naval war, would it not be a great reflection on the Admiralty when the country realised that they were short of probably ten battleships which ought to have been in existence? That would jeopardise the whole position. Again, we know very well in these critical times that on our foreign stations we have ships that are obsolete in the sense that they are not the very best ships we are capable of producing, whereas our competitors have the very best ships they have been able to produce. Another danger is that in the Mediterranean we are wofully short of cruisers. The Admiralty may say that they have these cruisers in our yards and can commission them at short notice, but a ship commissioned at short notice is less effective than a ship which is already in commission.
How do the Government propose to deal with these arrears? They are going once more to resort to the expedient of appointing a Committee to advise them as to the cause of the delays and how they can be obviated. They are going to call into a great public Department outside experts to tell them how to manage their business. Sir Thomas Sutherland and other men of great experience are on the Committee. But it is humiliating that the Admiralty, with all its traditions and all its opportunities for obtaining experience, have to invoke outsiders to explain to them what has happened, and to prevent it happening again. I hope we shall not
806
always be subject to outside experts' information on these matters.
As to the personnel, we are going to vote a greater number of men than ever before, an increase of nearly 4,000. It would be interesting to know how many of the men voted last year are borne at present. I see there was a deficiency of 2,600 at the beginning of the year, and I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us as to the actual number now borne. There are many of us who hold the opinion, despite the large numbers we have been voting for the last year or two, that we will not have enough men to man the ships which will be finished within the next twelve months. It is estimated that ten ships will be completed, and they alone will exhaust 7,000 men, apart from the cruisers altogether, and it is estimated by some of us that there will be a deficit, in one direction or another, of at least 10,000 men, that there will be no margin to meet a large addition to the Fleet. I will illustrate what I mean by taking the First Lord's own statement. Last year we recruited 2,630 men for the Marines, but at the same time we lost 2,165, so that the net gain was only 465 men. Again, it is notorious that we are unable to secure the number of skilled ratings we require, the reason being that we are trying to get them at a lower rate than the market justifies. The result is that we not only do not get the quantity, but what we do get is not of a high quality.
The alternative presented by the hon. Gentleman to a large increase of the active list is the strengthening of the Reserve. At the present moment the Royal Naval Reserve is not popular. There has been a serious decrease in that service, and if we want to make it popular and to increase it we will have to make friends with the shipowners. We turn our backs on the shipowners, who are the only men who have it in their power to give us the sort of young men we require. If we can induce the shipowners to help then we will rehabilitate the Reserve and make it as it used to be —something worth talking about. The whole system brought forward by Mr. Goschen about two years ago has absolutely broken down. He told us that we

807
had a paper Reserve, but that he was determined, come what might. to give us a trained Reserve. He called on men to go to sea compulsorily for six months in the first year, and when we were anxious in the following year to know how that worked out we were told that it was working very successfully, although some of us did not think so. Now, however, it is admitted that it has broken down. The real reason why it has broken down is that you cannot expect men to give up their shore occupations and go to sea for six months. We are now told that the six months period has been abandoned, that three months has been substituted, and that even that will not be compulsory. The Admiralty have now started a new Reserve altogether, to be called the Fleet Reserve. The Fleet Reserve is a new experiment, but whatever happens to it every man in it will be a trained man. We are told that the Admiralty expects to have 7,000 men in this Reserve. That is very misleading, because you are transferring 5,000 men from the Seamen's Pensioners Reserve, which consists of men who have served their full time.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I explained that clearly, and stated the number that would be transferred.
MR. KEARLEY: I am not in the least imputing anything to the hon. Gentleman, hut the fact remains that these 7,000 men are not new men. There is no particular feature about the A scheme except that you are admitting Marines for the first time, but that scheme will not be available until 1923, because it will be twenty-two years before boys entering the service now can pass to the Reserve. The inclusion in the Reserve of short service men who have only served their first term will have very far-reaching consequences, because in effect it is the commencement of a short service system in the Navy, and whether it will be beneficial or not, it is impossible to say. Navy men are strong advocates of doing nothing to encourage short service in the Navy, but this provision will undoubtedly encourage men to leave at the expiration of their first term of service instead of serving on for
808
a continuous service pension. I think it will be bound to be attractive because the men are to be paid 3s. 6d. a week, and at fifty-five years of age will have a pension of £12 a year. You may benefit the Reserve, but you certainly will not benefit the long service system in the Navy. The Admiralty have, however, protected themselves to some extent by limiting the number of the B Reserve to 15,000. With regard to the artificers, if they are still to be part of the scheme I would suggest that there would be more needed in the dockyards. However, that is a matter which can only be tested by time.
I have just two questions to ask on matters relating to South Africa. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have announced that they intend to give pensions to the widows of the soldiers who have fallen in South Africa. Naturally that must be extended to sailors also. What I want to know is whether the Admiralty have considered the question, or whether they have decided to revive the Greenwich pensions, because the amount to be given by the Government is 5s. a week, whereas! the Greenwich pension is only 3s. 11d. The other question is with reference to the treatment of the warrant officers who I have distinguished themselves in South Africa. Their conduct has been testified to by commanding officers and generals in the field. I am not quite sure of the exact number of warrant officers concerned, but certainly five, if not more, were mentioned in despatches. All the soldiers and the naval officers who have been mentioned have received recognition, either by promotion or the D.S.O., but none of the warrant officers except one have received any recognition whatever. There is a difficulty in the matter I know, because the regulations governing the H.S.O. limit it to commissioned officers, and with regard to promotion there is a great dislike on the part of the warrant officers themselves to be made senior to those senior to them on the list. Still we are bound to give these men some recognition, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what he proposes to do. He informed me the other day that the matter was under consideration. I know what that means in the ordinary way, but I hope that genuine attention

809
is being given to this matter, and that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the regulations have been amended so that warrant officers may be included in the D.S.O. This is a matter affecting the whole of the lower deck, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance regarding it.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said that he had put on the Paper an Amendment which he proposed to move with reference to colonial contributions to the Navy, but he now understood that he would not be in order in moving it. He would, however, direct the attention of the House to what he considered a most unjustifiable thing in connection with the maintenance of the Navy. As far as he could gather, the contributions of the colonies to the maintenance of the Navy were insignificant and altogether insufficient when the great services which the Fleet performed for the colonies were considered. He knew that Australia contributed a very insignificant amount, though he could not find what the exact sum was, and he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he would be good enough to make a statement showing clearly how much was contributed directly or indirectly by any or all of the colonies towards the maintenance of the Navy. Ireland, which was called upon to pay a very large sum, received directly, at all events, very little return, and it was manifestly unjust that an impoverished country like Ireland should be called upon to contribute some millions to the Navy while rich and flourishing colonies were not asked to contribute practically anything at all, he maintained that Australia, Canada, and other colonies derived directly a great deal more profit and benefit from the existence of the British Navy than Ireland did. Australia had a large number of ships continually in her waters, and yet contributed practically nothing towards the Navy. He had heard the question of Imperial Federation mentioned, but whether Imperial Federation was good or bad, he would certainly say that they ought to have Imperial Federation to the extent that every colony desiring the presence and services of ships of the
810
British Navy should in common fairness be called upon to subscribe towards the-maintenance of the Navy. They were told about the great devotion of the colonies to the Mother Country, and of the great services which colonials had rendered to the Empire in South Africa, but it was certainly extraordinary notwithstanding all that talk that these great self-governing colonies made no contribution to the Fleet on which they de- pended for the protection of their commerce. With regard to Cape Colony the matter was somewhat different. If he was not mistaken, Cape Colony contributed £30,000 a year, and it was an extraordinary coincidence that directly after Cape Colony, which had a Dutch majority, decided to contribute to the maintenance of the Imperial Navy, war was declared in South Africa. That was a bad return to make for the action of the Cape Parliament, and at a time, too, when a Dutch ministry was in power and there was a Dutch Prime Minister at the Cape. Was it fair that the already overtaxed people of Ireland. Scotland. England and Wales should be called upon to bear the whole cost of the Imperial Navy? He was surprised that the question had not been raised by some English Member of Parliament, as he thought it was a question upon which almost all parties agreed.
There was also another matter which he desired to mention. He had repeatedly asked questions in the House as to whether the Admiralty could not from time to time send a cruiser round the coast of Ireland to protect the fisheries from illegal trawling. He had asked Mr. Goschen—he thought he was Lord Goschen now, but was not quite certain, as the rapidity with which some people became ennobled was bewildering —but he refused to send a single ship to protect Irish fisheries. Last summer, in Wexford, where he was living, fishermen complained to him that steam trawlers were destroying their fishing grounds, and they wished to know whether the Government would do anything for them. He told them that he had asked questions on the subject, but got very little satisfaction. The fishermen said that, although the taxpayers of Ireland were paying a considerable amount towards the maintenance of the Navy, they

811
hardly ever saw a battleship at all. Surely it was not too much to expect that the Admiralty would send some of their small ships to patrol the fishing grounds from time to time. Ho asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could not undertake that this slight return might in future be given to Irish taxpayers in compensation for their contributions to the Navy. That was a demand which he thought every fair-minded man would support. He had heard hon. Members from Scotland making the same complaint as regarded Scotch fisheries, and he hoped there would be a change in the attitude hitherto adopted by the Admiralty. It was one of the things which made Irishmen dissatisfied with the system of Government in Ireland. They paid millions towards the Navy, but the great majority of the Irish people, even those living on the seaboard, never saw a ship at all. Of course, the stock argument was that the British Navy was to protect the coast of Ireland from invasion. That was absurd. If Ireland ever needed the protection of the Fleet it was simply because of her connection with England. If Ireland were left to herself no other country would interfere with her.
It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Elibank, Master of

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Arrol, Sir William

Chapman, Edward

Finch, George A.

Asher, Alexander

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fisher, William Hayes

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Colville, John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Banbary, Frederick George

Cranborne, Viscount

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cubitt, Hon Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

Cust, Henry John C.

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Bignold, Arthur

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Bill, Charles

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Black, Alexander William

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Grenfell, William Henry

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Gretton, John

Bull, William James

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bullard, Sir Harry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Groves, James Grimble

Butcher, John George

Duke, Henry Edward

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Caldwell, James

Duncan, James H.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hambro, Charles Eric

Cawley, Frederick

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x

SUPPLY [MARCH 15TH].
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [MARCH 15TH].

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 450,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,657,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which welcome in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:— Ayes, 208; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 85.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashf'rd

  More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monmouthsh.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Moss, Samuel

  Spear, John Ward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (O'msk'rk

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Mowbray, Sir Rbt. Gray C.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Murra'y, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thomas, F.Freeman-(Hastings

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tomkinson, James

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

  Knowles, Lees

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Percy, Earl

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ure, Alexander

  Lawrence, William F.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Lawson, John Grant

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Priestley, Arthur

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Pym, C. Guy

  Weir, James Galloway

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Randies, John S.

  Welb'y, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

  Rankin. Sir James

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton u. Lyne)

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  William's, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Renwick, George

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge)

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

  M'Crae, George

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rigg, Richard

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Dowd, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Hammond, John

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Bell, Richard

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Mara, James

  Boyle, James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brigg, John

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roche, John

  Daly, James

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMd

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

  Field, William

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Doherty, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Second Resolution:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said his reason for interfering on this Vote was because when he called attention to a certain matter the other day for some reason or other his questions were absolutely ignored. He was, therefore, under the necessity of putting his questions again. He wished to call attention to the extraordinary increase in this Vote. If the British people were content to pay these increasing sums year after year they would soon find they would become an annual call, and there would be no ending to the course upon which they had entered. In the last five years the Army Estimates had almost doubled, and would in all probability, if the present policy were continued, be doubled again during the next five years. The Government of this country were animated by a wretched spirit of Imperialism, and the spectacle of Continental Powers draining their resources and starving their people to maintain huge standing armies was being followed in this country. It was impossible for England to imitate with success or rival the immense establishments on the Continent. It was an appalling thing for Irish Members to come there and see such enormous increases in the cost of the military establishments. Under the new arrangements there was to be an army corps in Ireland, but otherwise Ireland would get absolutely no return for the millions she was called upon to contribute towards these Estimates. The vast majority of the Irish people had shown by the attitude of their representatives in Parliament that they took no responsibility for the war in South Africa, which they considered was unnecessary and unjust, and it was their bounden duty to protest against it in every possible way. With regard to the Vote before the House, it would be the worst form of madness until the War Office had been reformed to trust the expenditure of this money to as incompetent a set of men as it was possible to imagine. They had got a new Secretary of War, but until the
  816
  reforms foreshadowed by him had been carried out and the whole system changed it was a very foolish thing for the people of this country to send good money after bad. The money voted last year and the year before had been squandered in a most reckless and extravagant way, bringing about defeats and disgraces in the field, and in all human probability the money they were now asked to vote would be spent just as badly and foolishly, and would be muddled away as in the past. In trying to rival Continental Powers they were departing from the best traditions of England and entering upon a course which would probably bring disaster and bankruptcy upon this country. The moral of his appearance this second time was that when he asked a question in a civil way he was entitled to a civil answer.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I put down the hon. Member's questions upon the last occasion when this Vote was before the Committee to answer, but when I came to reply I found that the hon. Member had gone out of the House and was not in his place at the time, or I should have answered him.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said he acquitted the noble Lord of any act of discourtesy towards himself, but he was mistaken. As a matter of fact, he was in the House and heard the reply. He might have been sitting under the shade of the Gallery. When he asked questions in the future he would take the precaution to make himself as prominently visible as possible. A great many people outside the House and in the ranks of the Army were seriously waiting for an explanation how it came to pass that a certain section of the forces in the field in South Africa were receiving as much as 5s. a day, whereas the ordinary soldiers of His Majesty's Regular Army were receiving something in the neighbourhood of 1s. They had heard a good deal about the valour and bravery of the Dublin Fusiliers, the Welsh Fusiliers, the Connaught Rangers and the Gordon Highlanders, but what the

  817
  people wanted to know was how it was that the men of those heroic battalions, who suffered most in hardships and losses, had only been receiving the ordinary miserable pay of 1s. a day, whereas the troops from the colonies were receiving 5s. a day? That was a monstrous injustice. They heard a good many dreadful and miserable stories of returned soldiers, of men crippled for life, finding their way into the workhouse both in Ireland and in this country. There were hundreds of people in Ireland, men, women, and children, who were now in the direst distress in consequence of this cruel war. They heard these things in Ireland, and contrasted the misery of their people with the position of the men who came from the colonies, and were receiving what to the poor Irish peasants seemed the prince's pay of 5s. a day.
  But his main reason for rising was to expose what he held to be a fraud on the part of those people who endeavoured to prove that because colonial troops had gone to South Africa, therefore the colonies were in sympathy with the war. It proved nothing of the sort. Ho had lived in Australia and read their papers, and he maintained that the mass of the people there were not in sympathy with the war, and that if a vote were asked in any Australian Parliament in aid of the war it would not be passed. "Oh," it would be said, "how was it, then, that so many thousand sons of the Empire came from every colony in Australia and from New Zealand to take their place in the campaign side by side with the troops of the British Army?" It was the 5s. a day. In Australia there were a great number of men who were accustomed to an open-air life, who were fond of riding and of wild, frontier-like life, and who, if you gave them a good horse, 5s. a day, and the prospect of some excitement, would go anywhere. If the War Office were to reduce the pay to 1s. a day, the same as that given to the Dublin Fusiliers and the Gordon Highlanders, they would see what the effect would be. Recruits would at once fall off. He wanted to know how many men were receiving 5s. a day, how much it came to, and who were getting it?
  MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)supported his hon, friend in protesting against this very large Vote being passed at that hour of the morning. He did not wonder at the Government being forced into this unjust and unholy war, because there was such an amount of money spent in the dockyards, in the manufacture of arms, and in trade in England generally. The whole of the people of England were making money out of the war, while the people of Ireland did not get a sixpence. It was therefore the duty of the Irish Members to vote against this Vote. He saw that a million was to be paid to the I imperial Yeomanry, but if they all showed as little valour in the future! as they had done at Lindley he would not spend a shilling on them. He also saw that £650,000 was down for the colonial contingent. Now, in regard to this matter a great deal had been said as to the number of troops that had come from the colonies. So far as his memory went, this great number Only amounted to 600. He thought there would be no difficulty of getting 600 corner boys, gutter boys, or men, probably, discharged from gaol, who would go over to South Africa for 5s. a day—not being able to earn a living in the country where they were—while the unfortunate soldiers from this country were only getting 10d. or 1s. a day. He had heard the hon. Member talking of the patriotism of the men from the colonies, but it was a five-bob-a-day patriotism. If they had only offered one bob a day they would not have had a single man from Australia coining to South Africa to fight their battles. Instead of the war being over, as was said months ago, it was only beginning, because they were asked for four millions more money than last year. He would move the reduction of the Vote by five millions, by way of protest against this extraordinary increase in the money asked for the Army, and if the Government were defeated it would be a very satisfactory result. In fact, it would be a very proud achievement on his part, and very possibly the Government would be glad to get out of the situation. Considering all the bother on their hands they were in a most unenviable position, for the taxpayers of this country as well as in Ireland were up in a small rebellion

  819
  against them. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by five millions.
  *MR. SPEAKER: No Amendment for the reduction of the Vote on this resolution is in order, as I have already put the question.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLthought that of all the forces which had been raised for the war, that which was likely to be of the least utility in the field was the Imperial Yeomanry. It was largely composed of boys of not more than sixteen years of age. He was travelling not long since between London and Holyhead, when an Imperial Yeoman, a mere boy, joined the train. He said, in answer to questions, that he was to sail from Dublin for South Africa the following Wednesday, that his father and brother were engaged in the war, and that it was on that account that he had been accepted for service. The lad's youthful appearance struck him so forcibly that he asked him his age, to which he replied that he was sixteen years; and he did not look a day older. Then he asked the boy how he had passed the standard, and the lad replied that there was no bar to entering the Imperial Yeomanry. In all sincerity he held that it was really a crime to take these schoolboys and send them to South Africa to be shot. He merely related the incident to show the class of men that were being engaged, and the manner in which money was being spent. It could not possibly be argued that such a young lad could be of any utility on service. He himself knew similar cases, and he therefore thought that the Vote for the Imperial Yeomanry was money absolutely wasted.
  With reference to the general question of the administration of the War Office, the hon. Member for East Clare spoke with great force, and with his accustomed ability, on the tremendous indictment laid against the War Office by hon. Members on that side, and also by the service Members. He thought that they should have some definite assurance that the subject was not going to be shelved. Whenever the Government wore in a difficulty over any question, a Commission was promised for
  820
  the purpose of shelving it, and nothing was really done. It was not fair to submit such large Supplementary Estimates without a definite assurance being given that the administration of the Department would in future be conducted on better lines. If the War Office were to be conducted in the future as, according to recent revelations, it had been conducted in the past, the sooner it was abolished altogether the better. The state of things disclosed between the two noble Lords at the head of the Department would lead one to suppose that they were boys squabbling at school rather than Ministers engaged in protecting the State. Under the circumstances they were quite entitled to press that such a state of things should be put an end to. He quite understood why the noble Lord did not reply to the trenchant criticisms of his hon. friend. It was very difficult to reconcile the ordinary rank and file to a shilling a day while other men were getting 5s. who had not borne the heat and burden of the fight. It was, however, absolutely necessary that some explanation should be given, because he knew from reliable information that at Aldershot and other military stations the greatest dissatisfaction was being manifested among the private soldiers. If the differentiation were to be continued he should not be surprised if it became more and more difficult to obtain recruits for the Regular Army. No doubt the Department might increase the inducements to enlist, but it would be a long time before the disagreeable impression created by the special treatment given to the Yeomanry would be removed, or before the ordinary Tommy Atkins would be convinced that his services had been as well recompensed as the emergency men who had been sent to South Africa. The Irish people were opposed to the war. They had in every way open to them denounced it as impolitic and unjust, and yet they were to be compelled to pay an unjust share of its expenses. He trusted his hon. friends would mark their disapproval of the policy of the Government by dividing against the Vote.
  *MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that in listening to the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite,

  821
  he found it difficult to know whether to treat them seriously or not. One thing he was perfectly certain of, and that was that, although hon. Members might speak for certain parts of Ireland, they did not speak for the vast majority of Irishmen throughout the Empire.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry. N)Let the hon. Gentleman try the issue in Ireland.
  *MR. CATHCART WASON*MR. CATHCART WASON said he knew more of Irishmen abroad than hon. Gentlemen, who utterly misrepresented their views. He would not have ventured to have interfered in the discussion were it not for the grossly calumnious utterances of hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members talked of 5s. a day, but that was no remuneration for the soldiers of the colonies who went to fight the battles of the motherland; and if the motherland did not desire to pay them at all they would have served for nothing. He had the honour of a seat in the New Zealand Parliament when the question of sending troops came forward, and Irishmen of all shades— Orangemen as well as Catholics—were unanimous in voting sufficient money to send a contingent to South Africa, and after that not only one, but several were sent. Feeling in the colonies was absolutely unanimous in favour of the war, and as far as he knew not a single voice was raised against it. He had heard opinions quoted from newspapers of which he had never heard, although he had lived most of his life in the colonies. It was said there was no feeling in the colonies in favour of the war, but he said there was, because the colonies realised that their whole existence depended on the successful termination of the war. Every class in the community contributed either money or comforts for the men who were to fight in defence of the motherland. Therefore, when hon. Members spoke as they had spoken to-night, he said most emphatically that they did not speak for Irishmen throughout the Empire. With all due, respect to hon. Members from Ireland he did not believe in their disloyalty. He believed that if the country were put to the pinch to-morrow they would also support her, and that all
  822
  their talk was the merest bluster. He firmly believed that it was not disloyalty. The Irish Members were probably just as loyal as other Members of the House, and they would die in the ditch to-morrow if duty called. He emphatically protested against the accusations which had been made against the colonists that they only came to the help of the mother country for the miserable 5s. a day. The great body of those who volunteered for service in South Africa were people who left good situations. Farmers left their farms, merchants left their business, and lawyers left their briefs. Everyone was anxious to subscribe, to assist and volunteer their services. The colonists had been libelled in two most atrocious speeches. It was enough to make the blood of any person boil within him. [An IRISH MEMBER: They took the five bob all the same.] The answer to that was perfectly simple. The pay was simply temporary pay and for a temporary reason; it did not carry any turther liability with it; whereas the men who received 1s. a day were professional persons. The hon. Members from Ireland knew that as well as he did.
  MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said the hon. Member who had just sat down was bubbling over with enthusiasm and loyalty and indignation, but he did not state what circumstances prevented him from going to South Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: Age.] He said the colonists were boiling over with enthusiasm and loyalty. It was within the knowledge of the House that Canada had within the last few months refused to send more troops to South Africa. Did that prove that the colonies were boiling over with enthusiasm? There could be no doubt that the pay of 5s. a day was an immense inducement to people who had not regular employment to enlist as volunteers in His Majesty's Army. It was a fact that most of the people in the Irish constituencies were opposed to the war in South Africa. It was a fact that the colonies were not so opposed. The difference arose from the fact that the colonies had self-government and Ireland had not. Let them give Ireland self government, and conciliate the people.

  823
  and it might be that they would be as loyal as the colonies. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said the Nationalist Members were there to obstruct the business of the House. Apart from the fact that such a phrase was not in order, the Nationalist Members were perfectly within their right in discussing these Votes at great length that night, and they deserved every facility from the House, as they were not interfering with the Government time. Perhaps they were interfering with the convenience of some hon. Members, but surely they were patriotic enough to sit up a few hours in the morning to hear some reasonable discussion. He hoped that Members on both sides of the House would join the Nationalist Members in making the Army what it should be—an efficient army. There was no doubt whatever that this country would be unable to recruit a force of 450,000 men by any other means than conscription. One matter on which the country had made up its mind was that it would not endure conscription at any cost. The Army of this country was a voluntary army, and to keep up the requisite number of men they must pay the ordinary rate of wages at which unskilled labour could be got in the country. Unskilled labour could command more than 1s. a day. The wages of agricultural labourers in the worst paid districts in England was 12s. a week, practically all found. He submitted that they would get none but the worst class of the community at 1s. a day. Of the 450,000 men 400,000 were common soldiers or non-commissioned officers, and they only got in regimental pay £10,000,000, and the other 50,000 received £11,000,000. This unequal method of distributing the money voted for the Army would result-in the failure to recruit the necessary number of men. To recruit a voluntary army it was necessary not only to pay a wage equivalent to that paid in the labour market, but also to provide special attractions to men who were asked to risk their lives. In their scheme, however, the Government had increased the number of men and decreased the attractions. Under the heading G the gratuities and soldiers' discharges only amounted to £200,000. as against £310,000 last year. That was a reduction of 33 per cent.,
  824
  although an immense number of men would be discharged during the present year; and they were to have no reward for risking their lives in the war, and the I unfortunate enteric patients who had returned would have nothing to help them on. He could not understand the reduction. Another matter which showed that the Government intended to resort to compulsory recruiting was that the item for recruiting had also been reduced. Of course it was plain that it would cost more to recruit an army when the jingo fever had passed away, and it was clear to his mend that sooner or later the Government intended to force conscription on the country unless the House of Commons put a stop to their present policy in time.
  The Secretary of State for War boasted that his scheme would increase the efficiency of the Army, but he could find no trace of increased efficiency in the Estimates he was criticising. The efficiency of the Army could be increased in several ways, the principal one being to give the men better training. They all knew that the artillery practice in the war was wretchedly bad, and it would therefore have been thought that more money would have been devoted to gunnery establishments. Instead, however, the Vote for the School of Gunnery had only been increased by £1,400 which he submitted was a miserable increase for the purpose. If the efficiency of the Army were to be increased it was essential that more guns and better guns should be provided, and the increase under that head was, in his opinion, absolutely insufficient. Then in reference to engineering, the Boer; farmers, who were never trained in the art of war, were able to entrench themselves so as to be practically invulnerable, simply because they knew how to use the pick and shovel. The increase under that head was only £1,200, which was also insufficient. The marksmanship of the Army, too, was very bad, but the amount to be devoted to it was only increased by £4,000. Hon. Members from Ireland were entirely opposed to the war, but that was no reason why they should not endeavour to limit the expenditure on the Army, and that expenditure could only be limited by making the Army efficient. The hon. Member for Orkney

  825
  and Shetland spoke about loyalty, but he observed that the pay of the South African local forces had been reduced by £.350. He wished to know whether that reduction was accompanied by a decrease in the number of men, and, if it were was hat a sign of loyalty?
  He wished to call attention to the remormons Supplementary Estimates which were brought forward in connection with matters which could very well have been foreseen. The Estimates were presented in this form merely for the purpose of blinding the people of the country to the enormous expenditure being incurred by the Government. Tore Governments had the reputation of always putting money into circulation. and the present Government had worthily upheld the tradition. The reduction of £17,000 with regard to the China Expedition was altogether uncalled for, especially in view of the fact that at the present moment a war with Russia was quite within the bounds of possibility. The messing allowances for officers and the amount of hand expenses were perfectly ridiculous. and if the taxpayers only knew how their money was being wasted they would lose the little remaining confidence they had in the War Office. The matters revealed by these Estimates showed that the Secretary of State for War bad fallen a victim to the red tape of the War Office. and drifted in the steps of his predecessors. The hon. Member confidently predicted that. instead of efficient troops. the country would possess a very inefficient Army unless the principle of conscription was applied. There had been a terrible increase in the ordinary military expenditure, the amount now being about £21,000.000, and the country was paying much more for its small voluntary army than France was paying for its army of 3,000,000 men. or Germany with its 4,000,000. The present proposals of the Government were a first step towards conscription, but although the people of England had forgiven many things in order that the South African war might be carried on, they would never forgive the Government if through it they were forced to adopt the principle of conscription.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The hon. Member who has just spoken expresses the hope that the hon. Members around him would not fail to follow him with long speeches in support of the view he was taking, and certainly, to judge by the length of his own speech, he set them a good example in that direction. But I would make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember the position in which we stand with regard to this matter. The Vote has been placed on the Paper, no doubt, at a late hour. on a distinct understanding between the First Lord of the Treasury and the House that there should be a special opportunity of discussing by resolution all the important services which are contained in the Vote, and that resolution will be taken very early after Easter, and I cannot help thinking that both from the point of view of that understanding and from the point of view, in which we all share, of getting an effective discussion, this is rather a worse time than the opportunity which will be given shortly after Easter for going into the whole subject. The hon. Member said he had broken new ground. It is pefeetly true that he discussed nearly every item in the Vote, and I am afraid that if I were to follow him I should take even a longer time.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Give us a full explanation.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Let me say one word in reply to the hon. Member for East Clare. He spoke of the difference between the pay of the Yeomanry and that of the ordinary common soldier. Of course there is a difference, but perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that the men we get in the Yeomanry are, as a rule, three or four years older than the ordinary recruit. We have got for the short period we require men who are in the very prime of life. That is the reason for the difference in the pay. Everybody knows for a short period of that kind we are obliged to pay a higher sum. I pay my tribute to the value of the colonial

  827
  contingents during this war, and to the bravery which they have shown. In reply to what has been said I may say that there has been no falling off in the desire to serve the King. One hon. Member stated that Canada has refused to send a contingent, but I may point out to the hon. Member that within the last four months Canada has raised 1,000 men for the South African Constabulary, and all the other colonies have made equally generous responses. The number of colonials drawing the higher rate is about 30,000, and all those men cease to serve when the war is over. Then we shall be relieved of that extra pay which it has been well worth our while to offer them. On all points connected with this Vote I am prepared to give chapter and verse to the House, but I do think the opportunity afforded at two o'clock in the morning is extremely inconvenient, and not only this, but we shall not get any report in the papers. Therefore, I intend to defer my reply on some other points until the exceptional opportunity provided by the First Lord of the Treasury arrives, and then the main debate can be taken upon that occasion.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if it was not a fact that the Colonial Governments in Australia had forbidden recruiting for the Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question as to the total cost of the colonial contingents.
  *MR. BRODRICK: There are about 30,000 colonial troops receiving the higher rate of pay. In order to get at the cost of sending out these contingents we

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cavendish, Y. C. W. (Derby shire

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, George H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Bignold, Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bill, Charles

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  should have to get Returns from South Africa, and also from the colonies, and I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that with the immense amount of; labour at the War Office in consequence of what is going on now in South Africa, we are unable at the present moment to supply this information. The hon. Member has now made his rejoinder, and I think that for the general purposes of debate we shall do well to adjourn the whole discussion until the promised opportunity after the holidays.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)said the Secretary for War had stated that there was an understanding in regard to the further opportunity to discuss this question after the holidays. As far as the Irish Members were concerned, they desired to discuss this question upon every available opportunity. He wanted some information regarding—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  *MR. NANNETTI: I am afraid you will bring about such a scene as that which occurredthe other night. It is disgraceful.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes,; 66. (Division List No. 86.)

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ryS. Edm'nds

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Groves, James Grimble

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midl'x

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spear, John Ward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Talbot, Lord F. (Chichester)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Percy, Earl

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Knowles, Lees

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whiteley, H. Ashton-u.-Lyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pym, C. Guy

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Randles, John S.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstuther.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Malcolm, Ian

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph.

  O'Kelly, James (Rosc'mmon, N.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Malley, William

  Asher, Alexander

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Black, Alexander Willian

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Shee, James John

  Boyle, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvoushre

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Colville, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roche, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Crombie, John William

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorg'n, Gower

  Cullinan, J.

  Murphy, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Daly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ure, Alexander

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Doherty, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Dowd, John

  Field, William

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt Sir Alex F.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bagot, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Asher, Alexander

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  830

  831

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Randles, John S.

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bignold, Arthur

  Henderson, Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Bill, Charles

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rilley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rigg, Richard

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bull, William James

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Knowles, Lees

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V C W. (Derbyshire)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cawley, Frederick

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Levesen-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Colville, John

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Crombie, John William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Durnfriessh.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

  Elibank, Master of

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ure, Alexander

  Finch, George H.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

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

  Gore, Hn. F. S. Ormsby-

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whiteley, Ceorge (York, W. R.)

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton under L.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Greene, Sir E. W. Bry St. Edm'nds

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Gretton, John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Young, Commander (Berks., E.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Priestley, Arthur

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid' x.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

  Pym, C. Guy

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (R'ssc'mm'n,N.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Malley, William

  Boyle, James

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Shee, James John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Killopp, W. (Sligo, North)

  Redmond, William (Care)

  Daly, James

  Murphy, J.

  Roche, John

  Doogan P. P.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Field, William

  O'Doherty, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Dowd, John

  Adjourned at a Quarter after Two of the clock.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Worcester Tramways.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Watford and District Tramways Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 7 and such parts of Tramways Nos. 1 and 11 as are within the district of the Watford Rural District Council be struck out of the Bill.
Read, and agreed to.

LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [H.L.]
  LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reports of His Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
KING'S NORTON AND NORTHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS RILL [H.L.]
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
    BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned this day at Two o'clock; and pray leave not to sit again till Monday next; read, and leave given.
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  BRIDEWELL HOSPITAL RILL [H.L.]

    LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [ILL.].
    Read 2ª (according to order).

LLANELLY AND MYNYDD MAWR RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.
LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been? withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.

ASPATRIA, SILLOTH, AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the

635
Table. The orders made on the 8th March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed forthwith.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION RILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 27th day of June next; That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Thursday, the 9th day of May next; That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 27th day of June next; That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendment these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended; That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Thursday, the 9th day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Friday, the 17th day of May next; That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday, the 17th day of May next.
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 24.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY.
  I. (Royal Military Academy, Wool-wich)—Report of the Board of Visitors for 1900.
  II. (Royal Military College, Sandhurst)—Report of the Board of Visitors for 1900.
  III. Finding of a Court of Inquiry, held at Barberton on 25th September, 1900, to investigate the circumstances under which Lieutenant-Colonel B. E.
  636
  Spragge, D.S.O., 13th Battalion Imperial Yeomanry, and others, became prisoners of war.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  No. 2562. France (Havre).
  No. 25G3. Italy (Ancona).
  No. 2564. Japan (Hiogo and Osaka).
  Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT (ANNUITIES).
  Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death, which have been made within the year ended 5th January, 1901; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

SCOTTISH PRIVATE ILL LEGI SLATION—LOCAL INQUIRIES.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is the case that the meeting of the Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, fixed for the 22nd instant, is to be held in Edinburgh;. whether it is the case that three Provisional Orders referred to the Commissioners relate to localities in the West of Scotland; whether the actual inquiry in this case is to take place in Edinburgh or in the localities; and whether, under Section 6 of the Act, it does not rest with the Commissioners themselves to fix the place of inquiry. These are rather important questions for those who are interested in Private Bill procedure in Scotland. This is the first meeting which the Commissioners hold under the Act, and it is therefore important that the procedure should he in all respects such as may form a good precedent for the future. The holding of the inquiry in Edinburgh for those Bills which concern the West of Scotland, appears to be rather an unfortunate

637
mode of procedure, because it would seem to indicate that it is the intention in future to hold all inquiries in Edinburgh. If that is the case, it really means that we do not have the advantage of the Parliamentary counsel in London, but have to take Parliamentary counsel in Edinburgh. The intention of the Act was that the inquiry should be held as near the parts concerned as possible. Without saying a word against the excellence of the Parliamentary Bar in Scotland—if there is a Parliamentary Bar—I would point out that in Aberdeen, Glasgow, and other towns in Scotland, there is plenty of legal ability and forensic power, and lawyers in those parts of the country might easily take up the cases in which those parts are interested. That, I submit, is the intention of the Act, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to state that it is not intended that all future inquiries shall be held in Edinburgh. If that is the intention it will be necessary to amend the Act. Section 6 of the Act lays down that, subject to a General Order, the Commissioners shall hold the inquiry at such place in Scotland as they may determine, with due regard to the subject-matter of the proposed Order, and the locality to which it relates. An inquiry in Edinburgh in the case of these Bills affecting the West of Scotland would not be held in a place with due regard to the subject-matter of the proposed Order and the locality to which it relates.
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving me notice yesterday of his intention to put this question. It is the case, as stated by him, that under the Act passed the year before last, it does rest with the Commissioners to fix the place at which the inquiries are to be held. The circumstances under which Edinburgh was fixed for the first inquiry are as follows: The panel of Lords available was only secured on the 12th of the present month, and it was found impossible to get the requisite four Commissioners from the Members of the two Houses by the 14th instant. If we had delayed beyond the 14th, there would not have been time to have the inquiry before the natural Easter
638
recess. Under those circumstances, and keeping in view the importance of holding the inquiry into a group of Orders before Easter, and to the requirement contained in the General Orders that seven clear days notice of the time and place of the inquiry must be given, I thought it undesirable to delay the announcement of the place of meeting. I therefore consulted the noble Lord who I knew would be, in all probability, and has been since, appointed Chairman of the Commission, as to the place that would be most convenient. Four out of the seven Orders which are in the list of those set down for inquiry in Edinburgh come from places for which Edinburgh is certainly the most convenient place of meeting. There are three others—one relating to Hamilton, one to Ayr, and one to Ardrossan—included in the group; but we knew that the opposition to the Hamilton Order was about to be withdrawn, and we only included that pro forma in case the opposition was not withdrawn. Since that time the opposition has been withdrawn, and it will go on as an unopposed Order. With regard to the other two Bills, we did what we could to consult the promoters. In the case of the Ayr Bill, the promoters preferred Edinburgh to Ayr, Glasgow, or any other place, and neither in that case nor in the case of the Ardrossan inquiry, have I received any intimation that the parties concerned would have preferred that the inquiry should be held in any other place.
It is not my intention to guide the Commissioners, who may hereafter be appointed, in the direction of fixing Edinburgh as in all cases the place of inquiry. I think it most probable that the next inquiry will take place in Glasgow; but, of course, that is not yet decided, and cannot be decided until the Commissioners are appointed. I can only say, generally, that in all future cases, when the system which has just been inaugurated is in working order, it would be right and proper that the parties concerned should indicate to my Department any views they may have as to where the inquiry should he held, and I would pass them on. It is not our intention to concentrate the inquiries in Edinburgh; but in the case to which

639

the noble Lord has referred, owing to pressure of time we thought it on all grounds less undesirable that the inquiry should be at once appointed for Edinburgh than that it should be postponed until after the Easter recess. I hope my answer will be satisfactory to the noble Earl, and I can assure him that I am anxious to do the best I can for all parties.

EARLY CLOSING OF SHOPS.
The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered except to members of the Committee until further order.
NEW BILLS.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the arrangement of polling districts in Parliamentary boroughs. (No. 22.)

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further provision with respect to the arrangement of polling districts for the election of county councillors. (No. 23.)
  Presented by the Lord Ribblesdale; read Ia; to be printed, and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.

CHINA—ANGLO-RUSSIAN DISPUTE AT TIENTSIN.
EARL SPENCER: I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he has any information he can give the House as to the incident at Tientsin, in which the public are much interested.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I shall be very glad to give the noble Earl whatever information I have in my possession. The House will recollect that this dispute has reference to a somewhat extensive area on the left
640
bank of the Pei-ho River, which in the autumn of last year was occupied by Russian troops and claimed by them as belonging to them by right of conquest. We were subsequently informed that an agreement had been entered into between the Chinese Government and the Russian military authorities, through the medium of Li Hung Chang, by which this area was to pass under Russian occupation. The area in question comprises several plots of land which are held to belong to the Northern Chinese Railway Administration, and which therefore form part of the security of the British bondholders who are interested in these railways. The line at Tientsin forms part of the railway which was originally occupied by Russian troops, but of which a portion was lately transferred by the Russian military authorities to Count von Waldersee, who again transferred it to the British military authorities. Since that transfer it has been worked by them, aided by the staff of the railway.
It appears that it was necessary for the convenience of the allied forces that a railway siding should be constructed on one of the reserved plots to which I have referred, and we learn that the presence of the British working parties on that plot was treated by the Russian military authority as a trespass upon Russian territory. It was subsequently alleged that Russian boundary marks had been removed by our soldiers, and an affront consequently offered to the Russian flag. In the circumstances wetelegraphed on the 16th instant to the authorities in China that in our opinion the right of British and Russian troops to occupy certain disputed points was a question which could most appropriately be disposed of by Field-Marshal von Waldersee, the Commander-in-Chief of the allied forces; and we instructed General Gaselee to invite the Field Marshal to settle the immediate difference which had arisen between the Russian and British military authorities, reserving for future examination all questions concerning the validity of the concession itself and of alleged private rights within its limits. That was on the 16th, and we instructed General Gaselee that in the meanwhile he should avoid using force except for the purpose of repelling aggression.

641
On the 20th, the alleged removal of the Russian boundary pillar having meanwhile occurred, we again telegraphed to our representative at Peking, instructing him that as it was alleged that British troops had encroached upon Russian territory and removed Russian boundary marks, and as there was a dispute as to the facts, we were ready to refer those facts to Count von Waldersee, or, indeed, to any court which Count von Waldersee desired to appoint for the purpose, on the understanding that if either side had been found to have committed an irregularity that side should offer suitable apology to the other. We added that, in our opinion, the construction of the siding, which we believed to be a matter of some importance to the allied forces, should continue, but under whatever conditions Count von Waldersee might think fit to impose. My Lords. I am glad to say that we have heard this morning from our Ambassador at St. Petersburg that Count Lamsdorff had mentioned the matter to him and desired our Ambassador to propose immediately to His Majesty's Government that we should agree to reserve all questions of title and proprietary rights for examination between the two Governments, and that meanwhile we should at once send orders for the withdrawal on both sides of the troops at the disputed point so as to avoid the risk of accidents.
Count Lamsdorff went on to say that the Russian Minister of War would telegraph specific instructions in this sense if His Majesty's Government would agree to the proposal, and he ended by expressing in very moderate and statesmanlike terms his desire to avoid any cause of friction between the two Governments. I need not say that we at once telegraphed expressing our entire concurrence in the views Count Lamsdorff had expressed, the more so because those views were entirely in accord with the policy we had indicated in the telegrams, the substance of which I have just read to your Lordships. We accordingly sent to our military authorities instructions to carry out a simultaneous withdrawal from the disputed points. We added that we thought that it might be desirable that that withdrawal should be carried out to the satisfaction of Count von Waldersee, so that there might be no room for, or risk
642
of, misunderstanding on matters of detail. I hope the effect of the correspondence I have indicated goes to show that the incident is virtually at an end, and that what really was a very small matter of strictly local importance will not be allowed to disturb the relations between the two countries.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (SALE TO TRAVELLERS) BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I feel that perhaps some apology is due to your Lordships for intruding upon you with a request, a third time within eight days, that a Second Reading should be given to a Bill dealing with the liquor licensing laws. But, on the other hand, I think that anyone who is observant of the signs of the times, and especially of the signs of the times in both Houses of Parliament, will feel that there is a general desire at this moment that matters of this sort should be dealt with, and, further, a sense that if the Government does not take them up and make itself responsible for dealing with them, they can be best dealt with in a series of small Bills rather than by attempting a large consolidating measure. The Bill to which I am now asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading aims at combating one specific evil, and one specific evil only. I hope it is not open in any way to the criticism which the noble Marquess at the head of the Government brought the other night against some legislation proposed in this matter— namely, that it is apt, in trying to punish the, guilty, to give undue inconvenience or hurt to the innocent. The speech of the noble Marquess last Thursday† was full of interest and suggestive-ness to those who are engaged in endeavours of this kind. I do not desire now to discuss the principles which were then laid down as to the manner in which legislation on all these questions ought to proceed, because I hope that this Bill lies altogether outside the range of the noble Marquess's criticism on that occa-
† See preceding volume of Debates, page 1511.

643
sion. Barely and bluntly stated, the noble Marquess appeared to object to almost all preventive legislation, as contrasted with punitive legislation. I am quite sure the noble Marquess had no intention of making so sweeping a generalisation as that, and I am very certain that in his long Parliamentary experience he has many and many a time given votes in favour of measures which have inflicted very real harm on innocent people for the time in view of the larger interests involved, and of the greater gain that would ultimately be arrived at. I now pass to the Bill before your Lordships. Perhaps for a moment I may remind the House of what the existing law is on this matter. Throughout England and Wales there is virtually a large measure of Sunday closing obligatory upon licensed houses. The law, as your Lordships are aware, is that public-houses are to be closed on Sunday, with the exception that in London they may be open from one o'clock till three p.m., and from six to eleven p.m., and in the country from 12.30 to 2.30 p.m., and from six to ten p.m. Except for that, they are at this moment closed by law, and I am not aware that any appreciable body of opinion exists in favour of a relaxation of that measure of closing which is now enforced. When' Parliament enacted that public-houses should be closed to that extent, it was quite obvious that some provision had to bo made to meet what might be the legitimate needs of persons travelling, either by road or rail, or otherwise. Therefore, in the Acts of 1872 and 1874 it is provided specifically, not that a traveller, but—mark the phrase—a bona fide traveller, shall be provided with refreshment if he is more than three miles from home and applies for it, or if he applies for it at a railway station when starting by train or arriving. It is of some importance to notice the actual, words. The Act of 1874 provides that its provisions "shall not preclude a licensee from selling liquor at any time to bona fide travellers"—who are defined as having lodged three miles from the place of sale—nor shall they" preclude the sale at any time at a railway station of intoxicating liquors to persons arriving at or departing from such station by railroad."
The intention of those clauses is obvious, and it seems to me most excellent; but
644
what I hope to show is that the provisions laid down as to the legitimate relief of bona fide travellers are at this moment being grossly abused, and that the enactments Parliament has made are being flouted every Sunday by those who are taking advantage of provisions enacted for quite a different purpose. The evidence to that effect comes from literally every part of England and Wales, and it is absolutely accurate to say that both parties on the Royal Commission, and I think every member of the Royal Commission, recommended that some definite change should be made for meeting that specific evil. There is a mistake, for which I am bound to apologise to the House, in the Memorandum I prefixed to the Bill as explanatory of its provisions. I inadvertently quoted, as my authority for saying that the Majority Report recommended such a change, a paragraph which refers only to Ireland; but it does not matter in the least degree, because a similar paragraph, which refers to England, goes not only as far, but even further. I will read it—
"We do not think it necessary to maintain the right of the bone, fide traveller to he served during prohibited hours, but the needs of genuine excursionists cannot be entirely left out of sight. We consider that a limited number of licensed premises, where travellers may he served at specified hours, should be selected by the licensing authority, and that a special licence duty should be exacted in respect of this privilege. The statutory distance might be extended to six miles."
These are the words of the majority of the Royal Commissioners, and you would expect, I think, inasmuch as that majority included some members who sat with the avowed object of protecting the interests of the trade, and particularly the interests of the retail trade, and that two of their members—Mr. Hyslop and Mr. Walker— signed a large number of reservations in regard to many of the recommendations of the Report, to find this recommendation objected to by them. But we do not find such to be the case. The "reservation" runs as follows—
"In numerous localities, in which the resident population is but small, there are special circumstances connected with the habits of persons travelling, and so forth, which would lender the shortening of the hours of opening on Sundays a source of the greatest inconvenience and irritation."
We do not in this Bill, except in the most indirect way, suggest any shortening of

645
the hours of opening; we suggest provisions respecting the hours when public-houses are closed to other people, but open to the bona fide traveller. The practical unanimity of the Royal Commission on that point is really not wonderful, as the evidence before the Commission was overwhelming. I would ask your Lordships to notice two things—what it is that is happening at this moment, and, next, what we propose to do. What at this moment does happen? The law is meant to provide for the necessities of those who, from business or pleasure, are travelling on Sundays, but, as a fact, instead of people getting drink because they are travelling, they travel, if you can use the word, to get drink; in other words, they travel in order to evade the law which would otherwise press upon them. That seems to me a travesty and a mockery of the provisions which were laid down by Parliament for the comfort and convenience of those who might be travelling on Sundays. The difficulty in giving instances of the evil, as explained by the witnesses before the Royal Commission, is really to choose from among the witnesses. They are so numerous, and come from every part of the country with such a uniform tale as to the difficulties which arise, that the task before one is not to find evidence, but to make selections from it. I will refer to a few examples, purposely chosen from different parts of England. I would ask your Lordships to read, for example, the evidence of Colonel Moorsom, chief constable of Manchester, who describes the system of what is known as "three-mile houses" and the mischief they do. I turn to the south of England. A solicitor in Brighton, who has acted for the county police for ten years, and for the county council for the eastern division of the county, and who has had large experience in licensing matters, said—
"I think I should abolish the bona fide traveller. I thick the law at present operates most undesirably. A great many of those persons who are served as bona fide travellers are in no sense of the term bona fide, travellers, but merely loafing about for the purpose of getting Sunday drinks, and I think they are a nuisance to the licensees and to the neighbourhood. There are a great many of the better class (licensees) who would be very desirous of seeing him abolished. I have certainly heard that opinion expressed by several of them."
646
To go to another part of England, I will quote the opinion of Mr. Charles Roundell, who not only has had experience as a Cheshire magistrate and as a member of the House of Commons, but who was specially selected as Chairman of the Committee of the Magistrates of Cheshire appointed to consider this particular subject. He said—
"For the three-miles limit I would substitute a six-miles limit, but I would go further still, and I would abolish the bona fide traveller. I believe him to be a fraud, and simply a pretence for getting drink. It is a most serious public evil."
I now go to Yorkshire. Mr. John Thornton, clerk to the justices of Leeds, said—
"The distance of three miles seems to me to be quite inadequate to meet the case. Persons go from one part of the town to another simply to make use of these houses."
Mr. William Beilby, superintendent of police, West Riding, Yorkshire, said—
"I instructed a sergeant and some constables to visit five licensed houses and one beerhouse in a village about three miles from Sheffield, and they took over fifty names one Sunday, not one of whom we were able to trace afterwards. They were all persons resident in Sheffield. On a subsequent Sunday, in the same houses, the police found one hundred and eleven persons drinking. They all alleged they were bona fide travellers, but on being asked by the police what their business was, the universal reply was that they had gone to get a drink."
Mr. Beilby stated that the same state of things existed in other places from his experience. He added—
"In Bradford men would enter a public-house at 12.30 and drink during the legal opening hours till 2.30, would catch a train at 3.8 p.m. to Shipley, just three miles away, and drink there till 6 p.m.; and then catch the 6 p.m. train back to Bradford. In many instances, to my own knowledge, men have drank from 12.30 till closing time, 10 p.m."
That is the evidence of a superintendent of police in Yorkshire. Mr. Beilby added that the bona fide traveller was the cause of much disorder in the streets in the evening. To come nearer home, I will quote from the evidence of Superintendent Lucas, of the Clapham Division of the Metropolitan Police. He said—
"A number of persons in my district call themselves bona fide travellers, but they are really men who go out on the tram or 'bus on Sunday morning for the purpose of getting drink. They travel the limit of three miles, and, of course, have a right to be served."

647
I hope your Lordships will notice that all this is evidence, not of those who could be described as temperance enthusiasts, but of officials who are bound to look into the matter from a public point of view. If these people were genuine excursionists I for one should wish in every possible way to meet their reasonable requirements. It is not with the least desire of enacting a sweeping measure of closing public-houses on Sunday that I am advocating this Bill, but I ask anyone that reads that evidence—I have only taken specimens which could be multiplied ad libitum—to say whether these are the people who were contemplated when the provisions were made to meet the requirements of the bona fide traveller. One gentleman, who gave evidence from Leytonstone, Essex, said—
"I question whether the bona fide traveller exists. Speaking from our standpoint, he is not a bona fide traveller. I think it would puzzle anybody— the publicans themselves admit it to me—to find in our district on Sunday a bona fide traveller in the sense in which I think the Act meant it."
I need not labour the point, because the evidence is clear that in the opinion of the witnesses the evil is a real one, and one that requires some drastic remedy.
With, regard to railway refreshment rooms, the law, as I have mentioned, is that a man can be served if arriving or departing by train. But the way in which this is worked is that a penny ticket is taken by a large number of people, who immediately call for drink on the ground that they are, or mean to be, travelling by railway, and in some cases they make a journey of a few miles and at each end of the journey call upon those in charge of the refreshment room to provide them with such refreshment as they want, because, forsooth ! they are bona fide travellers.
Such, my Lords, are the facts. What do we propose? Not what these witnesses whom I have quoted ask for—the abolition of the bona fide traveller; not even what the Minority Report ask for. I simply ask that, in accordance with the recommendation in the Majority Report, we should increase the distance from three miles to six miles, and—although the distance is not specified in the Report of the Royal Commission—that every railway traveller
648
should travel twenty-five miles before he is entitled to claim to be served with refreshments as a bona fide traveller. We further propose that in each district the licensing authority should have power—again in accordance with the Majority Report—to select certain houses which should, on payment of an addition to their licensing fee, be specially licensed to serve the bona fide traveller. That is what the trade members of the Royal Commission themselves voted for, and it seems obvious that there cannot be any great hardship inflicted on the trade if effect is given to this recommendation. Will it, then, my Lords, inflict any hardship on the genuine excursionist? After much searching in the many volumes I cannot find any evidence in support of the contention that inconvenience will be caused on that side. There are those who say they do not see the need of such a change, but no specific inconvenience which would be caused is pointed out. There was one witness on behalf of the trade to whose evidence I ought, perhaps, in fairness to call attention. Mr. C. Deakin, a licensed victualler, who occupies many official posts in connection with licensed victuallers' associations, was evidently impressed by the dishonesty of the present system. He said—
"I think the words 'bona fide' should be taken out of the Act, and the word 'traveller' only should be used; that any person who has travelled three miles should be entitled to refreshment if he requires it. No one can deny that they are, at all events, travellers."
That is clear, but we should not be in any way furthering the desire of Parliament if we followed this advice. Mr. Deakin was asked—
"If a man takes a twopenny tram and goes three miles, or takes a threepenny ticket and, goes by train for the purpose of getting drink, is he thereby constituted a traveller?"
And the answer which the witness gave was—
"Yes, I think a man who goes three miles should be called a traveller."
I would ask your Lordships to remember that those who thus travel find the public-houses wherever they go open from 12.30 to 2.30 in the day and from 6 to 10 at night, or in London from one to three and from six to eleven.

649
One witness after another said this ought to suffice absolutely for the legitimate needs of those who are travelling, and I fail to find any evidence on the other side. I feel most strongly that this provision of the Act of Parliament is being made a farce of, utterly twisted from its original intention, and flouted in the face of magistrates and other authorities throughout the land. That has an indirect as well as a direct harmful result. It does not merely result in the evil against which the Act was intended to provide. It leads to an attitude towards legislative enactments in these matters which seems to me distinctly pernicious, and one which we ought, if possible, to prevent. I am not asking your Lordships to legislate now upon new lines. I did so last Thursday, and the noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, told us we had not gone far enough.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): But you were reasonable then.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I am glad the noble Marquess thinks we were reasonable. What we did then, reasonable or not. was to ask for something new, the provision of a black list, and I hope we may see that provision on the Statute Book before the session ends. We only ask to-night for such an enactment as will preserve the intention of the existing law. I am perfectly prepared if this measure goes into Committee, to accept amendments with regard to details. I do not profess to say that the details are not, in many of their words, challengeable. I have read the document circulated to your Lordships by the trade, and there are certain points in it which are worthy of consideration. We suggest that the justices should have absolute discretion, and that there should be no appeal from them; but if that provision were struck out I should not feel that the Bill was greatly harmed. The same remark would apply to the minimum of twenty-five miles distance by rail, and points of that kind. I am quite willing to accept Amendments on those points in Committee. But we do want this Bill in its essence and general drift. Not only is Parliament at this moment being literally put to
650
despite, but the existing state of things is a source of incalculable harm.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. (The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
LORD NORTON: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate boasts that he is proposing nothing new. I wish he was proposing, something new. He has shown how futile the existing provision of the law is, and ho proposes a provision which will be quite as much open to evasion. What we ought to do is not to place ingenious impediments in the way of people getting drunk, but to deal with drunkenness as a public nuisance. I agree with the right rev. Prelate that the country is most anxious at this moment to deal with this subject, that there is a feeling in the country that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the existing state of the law; but I do not agree with him that the feeling of the country is that the law should not be consolidated on general principles.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I entirely agree with my noble friend. The feeling of the country is in favour of that, and in favour of it being done by His Majesty' s Government.
*LORD NORTON: What the country wants is not piecemeal legislation and a patching up of the existing law. The light rev. Prelate began his speech by apologising for having introduced three Bills of this character in the course of the last fortnight. Only yesterday, in a another place, there was a long debate upon a Rill to prevent the sale of liquor to children. The consequence of this patchwork legislation will be absolute confusion, so that nobody will know what the law is, and there will be reaction against the very object which you have in view. The right rev. Prelate instanced the working of the existing law with regard to bona fide, travellers, and showed how not only evasion, but reaction is created. The law is not only evaded, but resistance is absolutely invited by such a provision. Moreover, it further complicates the compensation question. It is the abuse, and not the use, of drink which the Legislature ought to deal with, but the whole object of

651
recent legislation seems to be to put down the use of liquor, and it is hoped in this way to arrive not at temperance, but at abstinence. I object to the phrase "intoxicating drinks," because liquors only become intoxicating when their use is abused. You might just as well call water a drowning fluid. Drink should be sold at proper times and places, as it is wanted.
Public-houses guilty of allowing drunkenness, rioting, or adulteration of drink should be punished by inflicting penalties appropriate to the offence, and by the severest penalty the law now enforces— namely, the forfeiture of licences—when these offences are repeated, which would shut up a number the present system has viciously multiplied. What the law should provide against is the illegitimate demand for drink, not legitimate use. There is no reason why public-houses, so checked by the law, should become dangerous places. In parts of the Report of the Royal Commission we were warned against familiarising people with public-houses, as if they were necessarily wicked places. There is no reason why public-houses, if legitimately conducted, should be anything more than ordinary refreshment rooms; and I would appeal to the noble Earl opposite, Lord Spencer, who himself is a publican to a very considerable extent, for he has public-houses in six parishes, of which he is entire owner, whether those public-houses are unfit places for a child to go to, or for any traveller to resort to at proper times. I protest against this patchwork legislation. The proposition of the right rev. Prelate is just as much open to objection as the law he seeks to amend; and, as the Government have more or less promised to deal with this question on a large scale, I hope he will see his way to postpone the Bill, or, if he wishes to keep it alive, hang it up, until the Government introduce this larger Bill for dealing in a comprehensive way with the subject.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I think those of your Lordships who have read this Bill, or have listened to the speeches that have been already delivered upon it, will agree that it stands in a very different category to the two Bills which the right rev. Prelate introduced the other night, and which were read a second
652
time by general assent. Those two Bills were accepted practically unanimously, while it is clear that this Bill raises very strong differences of opinion. I am not disposed to waste any arguments on the point to which the greater part of the right rev. Prelate's speech was directed—namely, the unsatisfactory character of the person who has been created by statute a bona fide traveller. No doubt, a certain number of people who take advantage of the Act are in no sense bona fide travellers; but how does the right rev. Prelate propose to deal with the matter? He proposes, in the first place, to extend the limit from three miles to six. I venture to think that he has not shown that in making this suggestion he is doing anything to meet the objections he has himself quoted. No doubt the man who goes six miles would be rather more a bona fide traveller than the man who goes three miles; but I would ask your Lordships to remember that since the bona fide traveller was created the methods of travelling have been greatly changed, and that now in the neighbourhood of all the large towns flocks of bicycles and motor-cars are to be seen on Sundays skimming along at between twelve and fourteen miles an hour, and I cannot see how it can be said logically that six miles is the proper limit. The fact is, you are begging the question entirely by fixing a six-miles limit. If you wish to deal with this on any principle which can be a permanent solution, you must look further than to an alteration of the limit from three miles to six miles. I agree that the Bill differentiates between different methods of travelling. The Bill proposes that no one who is travelling less than twenty-five miles by rail shall be served during prohibited hours. I would venture to ask on what principle is that suggested, when a man who rides a bicycle or in a motor-car is left practically where he was before?
The Government do not feel that they would be justified in giving their assent to a measure which alters the law upon this small point, unless that alteration is likely to prove a satisfactory and permanent solution, and this solution certainly will not prove so. With regard to the railway clause, providing that a man must travel twenty-five miles before he can get refreshments, I would ask,

653
How is it to be enforced? Who is going to enforce it? Are there to be detectives on each railway station to find out whether a man asking for a drink has travelled twenty-five miles? or are the ladies in charge of the refreshment rooms to add to their other qualifications the art of cross-examining travellers on the subject, or to judge themselves how far a man has travelled, or is about to travel? A clause of this sort is open at once to the objection that it will be constantly evaded. A man may walk five miles by Toad to the station, and then travel twenty miles by train, but in neither case would he be able to get a drink, although he may have been much longer on his journey than the man who had travelled twenty-five miles by train. He would be liable to a penalty of five pounds if he-asked for a drink at the railway station, but, under this Bill, he might go into the neighbouring hotel—which is very often practically the same establishment, the railway bar being connected with it— and there obtain the refreshment, because he is six miles from home, and the law could not touch him. However desirable it is to make some alteration in the law with regard to railway stations, you will not achieve your object by this Bill. I was surprised to find it stated in the Memorandum of the Bill that this clause is intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission. If that is so, I can only say that the intention is not carried out by the provisions of the Bill. To take this particular proposal, the Majority Report said nothing about a limit of twenty-five miles, and the Minority Report, while admitting the evil, made proposals entirely different from those in the present Bill. The Minority Report said that railway companies should be required to draw up regulations for the approval of the Board of Trade, and that these should include precautions against the indiscriminate sale of intoxicating liquors at their railway stations; and I would say that, knowing something about the management of railways, I should have much more confidence in such regulations than in the present haphazard proposals.
There is one other important point. The Bill proposes to give absolute power and discretion to the licensing authori-
654
ties, not only to select what houses in their districts should be opened to bona fide travellers, and to prevent all the other houses being open to bona fide travellers at all, but to arrange the hours during which these houses should be opened, the conditions on which they should be opened, and a number of other things which the clause specifically refers to, and, as the Bill is drawn, all this without any power of appeal. I notice that the right rev. Prelate has already thrown over the provision which does not allow power of appeal. He has expressed himself as willing to accept alterations and modifications in the measure, but what I would point out is, that this is an entirely novel proposal. It proposes not only to grant local option, but to give the licensing authorities absolute discretion, without specifying any principles upon which they are to act, or compelling them to give any reasons for the course which they propose to follow. There is also this difficulty with regard to opening only certain houses for a certain time for the purpose of being used by travellers. How on earth is a traveller who comes from a neighbouring county to know what the houses are which have been selected to be kept open by the licensing authority, and what the, hours are? I find in the Majority Report special mention of the inconvenience which would arise if the hours of opening and closing are left to the discretion of the licensing authorities. They say—
"Many temperance reformers advocate that the question of hours should be placed within the discretion of the licensing authority, but it would lead to public inconvenience if the regulations as to hours of closing should vary according to the views of each licensing authority, in some cases exercising their powers in small areas."
I am well aware that that refers to the general hours of opening and closing, but if that is true with regard to general hours, it is still more true with regard to the particular class of houses under discussion. On the whole, dealing with the general provisions of the Bill, I am instructed to say that the Government do not see their way to support the Second Reading of the Bill. Although they admit there are evils, which have been pointed out by the Commission and by the right rev. Prelate, they do not believe that this Bill deals with those evils in a way which is likely to be a practical or

655
permanent solution of the question. It is very difficult to draw the line. It may be that the law as it at present stands does not draw it exactly at the right place, but the Government deprecate peddling with these small questions unless they are perfectly satisfied that the proposals are likely to be satisfactory, and are able or likely to be enforced without giving rise to evasion and dissatisfaction.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I have no doubt your Lordships listened with every attention to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. When he stated that the Government recognise that there are anomalies and objections in regard to the administration of this portion of the licensing laws I thought that possibly he would go on to say that, recognising that fact, His Majesty's Governmerit contemplated bringing in a measure dealing with the question, because they did not think the present measure adequate. But we had no such indication, and I cannot help feeling that the statement made by the Government will be received with much disapointment throughout the country, for as the right rev. Prelate remarked, the whole question has occupied great attention. There is expectation that something must shortly be done. The fact that the right rev. Prelate stated that he was prepared to assent to modifications in some parts of the Bill ought not to be regarded as a sign of want of earnestness or conviction on his part, but simply as a recognition of the great difficulties attached to any legislation at all on this subject.
In the absence of any large and comprehensive measure, it is only reasonable that an attempt should be made to deal with the question, if only in detail. I fail to see how the Bill will affect the riders and drivers of cycles and motorcars, because the extension will not touch them in the least. Sixty miles would not deter them. The object of the Bill is that if we cannot altogether secure a bona fide traveller, we can, at any rate, secure one more so than at present. I am, aware that representations rather deprecating the main provisions of the Bill have been made by the trade, and I fully admit that a good
656
deal is to be said on behalf of those engaged in the sale of liquor. In any case, those persons have a very short Sunday, and it seems hard that their few hours of leisure should be invaded by sham and bogus travellers. I trust that the Bill will receive the support of many of your Lordships. It is certainly supported by many in the country, who feel that, if we cannot get a large measure of legislation, something is better than nothing.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to submit that the argument which was addressed to the House by my noble friend Lord Belper is not one which ought to influence your Lordships to reject this Bill. What was the case which the right rev. Prelate made? He showed that the bona fide traveller was an undoubted evil, to deal with which something must be done, and he said there were two ways of dealing with the evil. Either you might abolish the bona fide traveller, or else introduce some legislation of this kind which would extend the distances which at present define and constitute a bona fide traveller. How did the noble Lord who spoke for the Government meet that? He began by saying he would not enter into the character o>f the bona fide traveller. He was most wise in that decision. Indeed, I think the noble Lord rather hinted that he was aware that the bona fide traveller was by no means a traveller bona fide. And then ho went on to ask what this Bill amounted to, and stated that to increase the distance from three to six miles was only a peddling proposal. I think there are many people who would infinitely prefer to walk three than six miles, and I think that the provision to extend the distance both by road and rail will have a wholesome effect.
I was struck by the observation of my noble friend Lord Belper that this measure does not contain any provisions which are likely to bring about a permanent solution of the question. At all events, it does something. Are the Government prepared to bring in a Bill which will do more, which will abolish the bona fide traveller? because, if so, I am sure that the friends of this Bill will be only too glad to support

657
such a measure when they see it. It is all very well to talk about legislating on this temperance question in a piecemeal manner. I submit that there is no other way of dealing with it. If you bring in a large measure the opponents of one clause add their forces to the opponents of another, and the very length of the Bill contributes to its defeat. It is impossible, consequently, that any Bill which embraces all the subjects relating to the temperance question, of which so many, as we know, are contentious, can pass into law. The objections which Lord Belper took to this Bill seem to me to be objections for Committee. I am sure I for one would be perfectly ready to accept regulations drawn up by my noble friend. I do not know anyone more likely to draw up sensible regulations; but that difficulty is one which we can discuss and deal with in Committee; and if the railway companies are ready to draw up these regulations I think it is very likely that the right rev. Prelate would be prepared to accept any reasonable proposal that might be made in that direction. We want to do something in this matter. There is a strong feeling throughout the country on these questions, and if we cannot solve them all at one time—I for one do not believe we can—let us, at all events, solve some of them, and this is essentially one branch of the problem with which your Lordships might be easily able to deal.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think that in the course of this debate it has not been sufficiently borne in mind that the bona fide traveller does not exist except on Sundays, and that even on Sundays he can always obtain refreshments during the hours when the public-houses are ordinarily open. We have not yet closed the public-houses all through the day, and this provision only applies to the intervals between. If a traveller cannot wait during those intervals, he must really bo so fond of his liquor that he is not far from being the sort of person who ought to be checked. Very often, in addition to the mischief he does by disturbing the more sober in habitants—not at all an uncommon thing—he desecrates the Sabbath. Why should we have any difference between Sundays and week

658
days in this matter? Why have we any legislation at all by which the public-houses are prevented from being open all the day long? Why is it that there is interference by the supreme authority of the nation with the way in which people are to gratify their wants, or their fancied wants, if there is no reason why wo should interfere with them? The reason why public-houses are closed at all on Sundays, except within definite hours, is clear enough. It is part of the same legislation which endeavours to provide that the Day of Best shall indeed be a day of rest, and shall not be desecrated, as it very often is, so far as we can prevent it.
The drink evil interferes very much with that observance of Sunday which is an important part of the habit of this country. I think we should find that it would be a very serious evil to the whole nation if the general respect for the Sunday were to be broken down, and there is nothing which breaks it down more effectually than to have drinking bouts here and there and people arriving home from some excursion or journey in a tipsy state, and who, in the presence of all their neighbours, flout the proper feeling with which Sunday is regarded This feeling ought not to be flouted simply because some people cannot wait a little longer till the public-houses are opened. That the evil is considerable we have very strong evidence, and that the present law, whilst professing to restrain it, does not really restrain it as it should be restrained, is equally clear. This is a small Bill, no doubt, but it professes to make some improvement in the working of the existing law, and that it will make some improvement I do not think there can be any question at all. The Bill may be open to considerable modifications, and those who support the Bill, as I do myself, will be quite willing to assent to such modifications if they are proposed in Committee. All the objections I have heard against the Bill are really objections that ought to be dealt with in Committee, and not on the Second Beading. If it could be said that the Bill could not effect any improvement, there would be a legitimate cause for voting against it; but [venture to say it will effect a very real improvement, and I trust your Lordships will not lightly cast it aside.

659
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, we have been told to-night that there is nothing to be gained by these attempts at what is called patch work legislation, or, as the Government prefer to call it, peddling legislation, and that the only thing to do is to pass a general measure. If the Government will take the matter up and bring in a measure, I am sure the peddling legislation will subside and wait. I remember five years ago introducng a peddling piece of legislation myself for restricting the hours during which public-houses should be open on Sundays. The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council then told me that the Government were appointing a Royal Commission to deal with this subject, and it would be a pity to introduce a small measure of that kind until the Commission had reported; but now the Commission has reported, and if there is to be no great measure introduced surely peddling legislation has a right to be heard.
The noble Marquess at the head of the Government knows that it would be quite impossible for any private Member to introduce any such legislation as has been indicated. If it is to be introduced at all, it must be introduced by the Government, and it seems to me unreasonable that because the Government, who alone could pass a large measure, will not do anything, those who wish to do something should be prevented from doing what they can. If that criticism is a reasonable one it would be equally reasonable to say of the unhappy war that we are now carrying on. "Why are all these partial attacks made here and there? Why do you not join together and sweep the Boers off the face of the earth?" That resembles the kind of criticism with which these measures are received in your Lordships' House. If those who have the power will not introduce a Bill, I think individual Members of the House are perfectly justified in doing what they can to remedy what are very serious and very real evils; and I hope the Bill of my right rev. brother will be read a second time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not blame the Bill simply because it is a small one, but because it seems to me to be ill-adapted to gain the
660
end for which it is brought in. I attach no importance whatever to the appeal of the noble Lord that we should at least do something. Lord Melbourne used to say that there was no more deplorable state of mind for public legislators to get into than to conceive the idea that they ought to do something without any very clear idea what that something was. That, I think, is the case with much of this temperance legislation. There is a great deal of evil, but it does not follow that every measure, large or small, introduced for the purpose of checking that evil will have that result, and it does not appear to me that this has been made out in the present instance. At present people who have not travelled three miles on Sunday are excluded from a public-house during prohibited hours, and cannot obtain the refreshment they desire to have. If they have gone more than three miles they can obtain it. But if the Bill passes they will not be able to obtain it until they have been six miles. Consider what those distances mean to a large part of the population.
The noble Lord says His Majesty's Government would not like to walk six miles a day. I entirely subscribe to his opinion, and in that we are very much like a large number of our countrymen. Three miles is a very effective limit. But everybody does not walk, and the class that seeks to obtain this liquor, I take it, is a little higher than the class that would confine itself entirely and exclusively to walking. Up to very recently, I imagine, carts and horses had something to do with that part of the population who, it is said, congregate at these public-houses on Sunday. Now, with the progress of invention, they are no longer confined to that means of locomotion. I think the noble Lord opposite referred with some contempt to bicycles.
*THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: No, with respect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether he bicycles himself, but I think he draws his analogies too much from the class to which he himself belongs. The bicycle is spreading very far down in the social scale, it is becoming

661
cheaper every day, and that is a change that cannot be ignored. Now in the case of a bicycle we know that six miles are not much more than three.
*THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I said sixty miles would not deter a bicyclist.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord is taking an exaggerated view. In my part of the country they are not as thirsty as that. I believe six miles will be no barrier at all, and, being no barrier, it will be the cause of dispute and of uncertainty to the police authorities. Really the law even as it stands is ambiguous and unintelligible, and when it has been manipulated by the right rev. Prelate it will enjoy those qualities in a, much more marked degree. I do not see any prospect of advancing by this Bill the one object that we ought to have in view—namely, the prevention of drunkenness. It strikes me very much that drunkenness has tumbled out of this discussion altogether. I think one noble Lord did express a desire to prevent drunkenness, but as a rule the expressed object was to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor, and as long as that was done, no matter whether the consumption was in excess or in moderation, the great object was to have been attained. Can one imagine how such an arrangement would work— that nobody might drink at a refreshment room unless he had travelled twenty-five miles or was going to do so? I imagine everyone would be going to travel twenty-five miles. This would lead to disputes. It is evident that to make such a regulation would inflict the greatest hardship in some cases. Think what it would mean to be dropped at a railway station, and, having lost a train, and having to wait a long time for another, to sit there hour after hour and be told that you are not to have a drop of refreshment unless you get into a first-class carriage and go twenty-five miles. I cannot imagine that such a provision would be enforced by reasonable people.
And that really brings me to what in my judgment is the weakness of all your present policy. You are carrying a vehement and well-organised section with you, but you are not carrying the
662
opinion of the people with you. There is a very great dislike on the part of many people to this perpetual interference, and a much greater dislike to subjecting their necks to the pitiless Puritan yoke. I feel sure that this legislation will not be popular in the widest sense; and though the people whom it affects are not accustomed to take action through large organisations, yet the result of the legislation will be to do that very thing which was deprecated by the right rev. Prelate—namely, to disincline them to the provisions of the law, to inspire them with a desire to evade it, and to banish from their minds any sympathy with the objects, aims, or methods of the legislators. I think the object which you are seeking is trivial in the extreme. You are producing a great deal of disturbance with very little result, and remember that all the result which you do produce—it is not large—is produced at the expense of the sober consumer. It is he whom you have to surround with impediments and difficulties in order to trip up the occasional drunkard for whom you are on the watch. That will not make the law popular. If I were to put forward a view of my own —and it is only my own view—I confess that where the object of your legislation, as in this case, is to avoid disturbance and uproar that may be unpleasant to the people of the locality, your wisest course is to place the power in the hands of the people of the locality, and to let them settle the matter for themselves. I believe that is the only way in which this one particular question can be settled.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: That is local option.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Local option is a very good thing in many places. I am not now advocating local option generally for all these subjects; but where the matter at issue is the comfort and welfare of the people of the particular locality, they ought to be consulted, and it is only from them that you can get wise and useful guidance. I think this measure a very small one, and, as far as it goes, a measure in the wrong direction. Therefore I cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill; but if the

663
right rev. Prelate will enter into the question in rather a broader and more philosophic spirit, especially if he will banish that secret lurking desire which impels so many who support this Bill to come forward—namely, the lurking desire to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor—if he and they will confine their efforts to the prevention of drunkenness, I do not think there will be any insuperable difficulty in dealing with a question of this kind. You ask me to promise to deal with this question. Look across the hall, and I ask you whether it is any good promising a measure of this kind. There are many measures which must attract the attention of His Majesty's Government before they can deal with a measure of this kind. The impediments, which I need not dwell on, are far too great at present. I merely make these observations that you should not say that I abandon all hope of dealing with these difficulties hereafter. I think that they will be dealt with, but they can only be dealt with by people who are single-hearted in the effort to stop drunkenness, and who do not mix it with the further desire to exterminate a perfectly legitimate indulgence.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, we on this bench very often differ from the occupants of the right rev. Bench on many questions brought before the House. We always regret that, but on this occasion I think it is incumbent on us to express a lay view in support of the proposal of the right rev. Prelate. The Bill is a movement in the direction of reform which, though small, will have considerable effect. The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke against the measure, and said it would be practically evaded. I venture to think that the noble Marquess is wrong. If the argument of the noble Marquess goes to prove anything, it is that the bona fide traveller should be altogether done away with. I am not prepared to say that. There is no doubt that new and different conditions of travelling have come about with the introduction of motor-cars, bicycles, and tricycles, and it is because that is so that it is impossible at the present time altogether to do away with the bona fide traveller. I think it would be unjust to
664
leave those who seek fresh air on Sundays to obtain refreshment only during the hours when public-houses are open.
The noble Marquess has given us his views, and in listening to them I almost thought ho had given his adherence to a principle for which many of us have been severely attacked—namely, the principle of local option. Though he guarded himself by saying that he was not in favour of it generally, he said he would apply the principle to this particular grievance. I rejoice to find that, even in such a small way, the noble Marquess has gone so far towards the principle of local option, It is true that this is a small measure, but it will certainly put this matter on a better footing than it is now. We all know what abuses attend the bona fide traveller exemption, and there is a general desire to diminish those evils; and, notwithstanding what the noble Marquess has said, I believe the Bill will go a long way in cheeking drunkenness. It has been said that there will be great difficulty in carrying out these changes, but the right rev. Prelate is quite willing to listen to suggestions and modifications in the provisions of the Bill, and therefore that need be no objection. I cannot see why there should be any greater difficulty in carrying out the limits in this Bill than there is in carrying out the present limits. For these reasons I shall certainly support the light rev. Prelate if he goes to a division.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am sure I am only voicing a general feeling which will prevail in the country when I express the profoundest disappointment and regret that we have not had from the noble Marquess any indication of what His Majesty's Government intend to do. I confess that this is a Bill to which I am personally not very much attached, as I do not care for these small and peddling bits of legislation. Taking the Bill, however, on its merits, I believe it will tend to strengthen the existing law. I am certain that it would be difficult to find in either House of Parliament any Member who would venture to propose the abrogation of the provision which the right rev. Prelate proposed to strengthen, and no one can live in the country without feeling that this Bill, if passed, will confer a very real benefit on

665
many persons in certain neighbourhoods. My reason for interposing, however, is to endeavour to get from the noble Marquess an indication of the intention of the Government. I cannot but feel that before we are asked to vote on these smaller measures, to which the noble Marquess has such strong objection, we have some right to know what other measure, if any, the Government propose, and what guarantee we have that within a reasonable period the Government will give us anything better.
I am inclined to think that those who have any interest in temperance reform will act wisely in giving their support to a measure like this, because, if we are to put the natural interpretation on the language; used in debates on the subject, we shall have to be thankful for small mercies. That being so, I do trust that this Bill will receive support. My still more earnest desire is that the noble Marquess will be persuaded to let us know what the Government intend to do. We had our attention drawn to this question in the debate which took place last night in the other House, but in the course of that debate it was impossible to gather what the attitude of His Majesty's Government is in regard to these questions. The representative of the Government who spoke in that debate said, as I understood, that he was only speaking on his own behalf and that of the Home Secretary, and not on behalf of the Government. One cannot but feel that this is very candid on the part of Ministers, but at the same time it takes away all the value from their statements. Reading the remarks of the subordinate members of the Government on this question, I can only draw this inference, that they are letting I dare not wait upon I would.
But when I listen to the noble Marquess I have a different feeling, the feeling that he does not believe in this kind of legislation at all, and that he is so devoted to the principle of individual liberty, or of laissez faire, in these social matters that he thinks we are better as we are. But if the noble Marquess had the kind of personal experience which a great many of us who live in the country and go about in the meaner streets of our cities have he would take a different view of the matter. It is not
666
merely with the prevention of drunkenness that we have to deal it. is a question of whether the State shall do its duty in regard to what is a dangerous trade. One distinguished Member of this House —the late Prime Minister—said not long ago, if I remember light, that we were under the influence of this traffic in drink, drifting perilously near the corruption of our political life, and I venture to think that that is the great question which lies at the root of this matter. If the noble Marquess had the leisure to study the evidence which was produced before his Royal Commission I cannot but believe that he would be convinced that, unless the Government take up temperance reform in earnest, there is danger of the corruption of our municipal and political life. I hope the noble Marquess will give us some guarantee that something will be done either during the present Session or within a reasonable time. I could give instances of towns in which municipal administration does seem to have been brought perilously near to becoming corrupt owing to the influence of the drink traffic; and, as I am given to understand, there are persons who have been decorated, whose connection with these matters the Prime Minister, I am sure, could not have known, or he would have been unwilling to see them so decorated, persons who were connected with maladministration of municipal affairs in regard to the drink traffic.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is rather libellous. The right rev. Prelate should name the persons whom he is attacking.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I could give the instances, but the point of my argument is that if the Prime Minister could give attention to the details of the evils connected with the drink traffic at the present time he would, I venture to think, be converted and become a more earnest temperance reformer than he has been hitherto. I cannot but believe, while holding firmly, as I do, to the great value of individual liberty and the importance of never neglecting the principle of laissez faire in polities, that temperance reform is one of the most pressing matters of the time, and it is our duty, a duty

667
involving no interference with devotion to the principle of individual liberty, to take measures to regulate a dangerous trade.

BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent, to the Commons.

LUDGATE HILL AND SNOW HILL RAILWAY STATIONS.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords. I rise to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade to the dangerous condition of the Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill passenger stations, and to ask whether the matter has been brought to the notice of the Board, and whether the Board can take any steps to compel the South-Eastern
On Question, their Lordships divided: —Contents, 45; Not Contents, 51. Resolved in the negative.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Scarbrough, E.

De Freyne, L.

Bedford, D.

Spencer, E.

Heneage, L.

Hobhouse, E.

Ripon, M.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Wolseley, V. [Teller.]

Muncaster, L.

Camperdown, E.

Northbourne, L.

Carlisle, E.

Aberdare, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Carnwath, E.

Acton, L.

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Annaly, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Dartrey, E.

Brassey, L.

Sandhurst, E.

Feversham, E.

Braye, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Lichfield, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Northbrook, E. [Teller.]

Crofton, L.

Wantage, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Davey, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Morley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Northesk, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Roberts of Kandahar, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Stanhope, E.

Haliburton, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Priry Seal.)

Strange, E. (D. Athole.)

Harlech, L.

Tankerville, E.

Hothfield, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

James, E.

Marlborough, D.

Verulam, E.

Kelvin, E.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Ailesbury, M.

Westmeath, E.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Lindley, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Manners of Haddon, E. (M. Granby.)

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

Llandaff, V.

Montengle of Rrandon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Manchester. L. Bp.

Newton, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Rochester, L. Bp.

Raglan, E.

Robertson, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Aldenham, L.

Rosmead, E.

Harewood, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Sinclair, E.

Howe, E.

Avebury, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Bateman, E.

Stanmore, E.

Lindsey, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, E.

Lucan, E.

Btythswood, L.

Windsor, E.

Mansfield, E.

Cotville of Gulross, L.

and London, Chatham, and Dover Bail-way Companies to make more adequate provision for the safety and accommodation of the public. In calling attention to this matter I am acting with the approval of the Corporation of the City of London. The facts with regard to Ludgate Hill Station are as follow: The Corporation of the City of London called attention to the state of this station as far back as the end of 1898, and in January, 1899, they made a specific complaint to the Board of Trade. Sir John Monckton wrote—
"I am directed to point out that the station is merely a timber structure, badly lighted, and has more the appearance of a temporary building than a station of considerable

669
importance; that the approaches to the station and platforms are inadequate and badly arranged; that the platforms, which have to serve both the up and the down traffic, are very low and narrow, and are in consequence a source of danger to passengers, particularly where the staircases occupy a large portion of the platform; that there is insufficient lavatory accommodation, and that the arrangements, generally, are ill-adapted to the exigencies of modern requirements and the increasing traffic."
The Board of Trade took the matter up, and the City Corporation heard nothing more about it till the end of October, 1899, when the Hoard of Trade sent to the Corporation a, letter from the General Manager of the railways, in which it was stated that plans were being prepared showing what improvements could be effected, especially with regard to the access to the platforms. But from that time to this nothing whatever has been done, except to improve the lighting of the station. What the company say is that if they are to do any good they must spend a, large sum of money to obtain compulsory powers to purchase. The City Corporation do not admit the plea of the companies that they can do nothing without compulsory powers of purchase; on the contrary, they (the Corporation) think that a very great improvement could be effected by utilising the vacant land that the companies have at the station itself, and that, comparatively, at small expense.
With regard to Snow Hill Station, the question of the insufficiency of the accommodation was originally taken up by the County Council in April, 1899. The Council complained of inadequate traffic accommodation, and made various suggestions, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships. Three days afterwards—on 8th April— the secretary to the companies replied to the effect that he hoped to be in a position to write definitely in a week or two. There the matter rested till 9th January, 1900 — about nine months— when the County Council thought it was time they got an answer. They wrote asking for a reply by 15th January. They got no answer, and up to 22nd November last they had received no answer to their letters beyond a formal acknowledgment. The County Council then handed the correspondence over to the Corporation of the City of London. This is the statement
670
of the City Corporation with regard to this station—
"The station is entirely in a tunnel, and the line is on a curve at that point. It is extremely dangerous by reason of the steam, smoke, etc., having no means of escape, and consequently obscuring the lights. The want of ventilation is aggravated by bad sanitary accommodation on the platforms."
One would naturally suppose that in a matter of this kind the Railway Commissioners would have jurisdiction, but I am told that the Board of Trade have come to the conclusion that the Railway Commissioners have no jurisdiction. I am also told that the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction, and it does not seem that there is any power anywhere to compel these railway companies to do that which it is their obvious duty to do. These companies have come to your Lordships' House for a Bill to give them further powers. Under the circumstances, I should have thought that their conduct was so contumacious that I should be justified in moving an instruction to the Committee that they should take into consideration the condition of those stations before agreeing to the Bill. But I do not propose to take that course, for I know your Lordships have a great objection to interfering with the discretion of any of your Committees. It certainly does appear to me, however, that as there is apparently no other means of compelling the railway companies to do their duty, this is a case in which the Committee might very well take into consideration the conduct of these companies with regard to these stations. I hope the, noble Lord who will reply to this question will say that this is his view also. Perhaps he will at the same time say whether he does not consider it to la; an unsatisfactory state of things that neither the Railway Commissioners nor the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction, in this matter; and I hope that when the Bill which is being promoted by these companies gets before the Committee there will be some indication on the part of noble Lords that they think it desirable that the Committee should take some cognisance of the dereliction of duty to which I have called attention.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: In the absence of my noble friend the Secretary

671
to the Board of Trade, I have been asked to reply to the noble Lord 's question. Towards the close of his speech the noble Lord suggested that I should express my private opinion on certain matters connected with the, powers of the Board of Trade over this railway companies. I am sorry that I cannot do more than read the answer which has been forwarded to me from the Department. The Board of Trade have received no recent communication with regard to Snow Hill Station. As to Ludgate Hill Station, the attention of the Department has more than once been called to the matter, and they have been in communication both with the railway company and the Corporation of the City about the accommodation provided. The Board of Trade are not in a position to say that an improvement in the accommodation of Ludgate Hill Station is not desirable for the convenience and, to some extent, the safety of the public, but it must be obvious that any adequate alteration of the station would cost an enormous sum of money, and a comprehensive scheme might necessitate the alteration of the viaduct over Ludgate Hill, which would be a doubtful advantage to the public, and the Corporation would probably have good reason to object. The Board of Trade possess no legal powers under which they can compel the company to make alterations in either case, but the Department has used its good offices, with the result that the company have agreed to meet the Corporation with the view to the preparation of a plan for altering Ludgate Hill Station. The Board of Trade will continue to use their good offices, and, if necessary, instruct one of their inspecting officers to confer with the City Corporation and the company on the subject,

THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name, which I read to your Lordships on Tuesday. As far as I know, there is no opposition to the motion on the part of the noble Lord. The only thing that it is necessary I should mention is that something has been said with respect to referring the Coronation Oath to the same Committee,
672
and making in it alterations which undoubtedly will have to be made. But the two subjects are not at all similar, and it would have been impossible to put the Coronation Oath into this reference. If, later, it should be thought wise to use the same Committee for the purpose of considering the matter of the Coronation Oath, I probably shall see no difficulty in that. But I have no doubt that it will be necessary to have legislation upon the Coronation Oath, because at the present time we should be asking the King to swear that he will maintain all the rights of the Church of Ireland.
Moved, To resolve that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Declaration required of the Sovereign, on his accession, by the Bill of Rights (1 Will. III. cap. 21 s. 1); and to report whether its language can be modified advantageously, without diminishing its efficacy, as a security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It would be easy to insert the words "Oath and Declaration required of the Sovereign." The Oath and the Declaration have, in other documents, been referred to together. But, as the noble Marquess says there seems to be a difficulty, no doubt he is right.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "His accession" would not represent "on his coronation." Again, there is some doubt how far the Coronation Oath is a security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession.
EARL SPENCER: It is certainly desirable that they should be treated in a different manner, and, as the noble Marquess undertakes to do that, no further criticism need be made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only undertook to do that if it was necessary.
LORD HERRIES: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the names of the Committee, as he promised to do on Tuesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not aware, when I promised to give the names on Tuesday, that it is usual to wait until the names of Peers and Commoners have been selected before they are proposed. The Commons have not yet agreed to the Joint Committee.
LORD HERRIES: I presume the number has been fixed?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether it has been fixed. We always contemplated a Committee of ten or eleven, but I should not bind myself if a reason occurred for having a larger Committee.
EARL SPENCER: And it will be after Easter?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Surely.
On Question, agreed to; Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.
House adjourned at five minutes before Seven of the clock till to-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.