Sitting of 25 February 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.—
  Garston and District Tramways and Electric Supply (Transfer) Bill.
  Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (South Yorkshire Extension Lines) Bill.
  Metropolitan District Railway Bill.
  Midland Railway Bill.
  Midland Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  BARKING GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SHEPTON MALLET GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  UNOPPOSED BILLS.
  Ordered, That, during the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman be Chairman of the Committees on Unopposed Bills.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
PETITIONS.

  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Tong, Bispham Hall, Wombwell, Wyrley, Lofthouse, Wharncliffe Silkstone (No. 3), Waverley, Featherstone, Grange, Bowers (No. 3), Jordon, Sharlston, Newland, Nostell, Denby Grange, FitzWilliam, Crigglestone, Park Hills, Netherton, Wharncliffe Silk-stone, Kippax, Methley, Swinton, Snydale (No. 1), Gawber, Good Hope, Altofts (No. 2), Liversedge, Woolley, Elsecar, Round-wood, Whitwood Mere, Frystone (No. 1), Carlton Main, Stanhope Silkstone, Houghton Main, Frystone (No. 2), Rawmarsh, Birley (No. 2) Snydale (No. 2), Denaby Main, Rockingham, Kiveton Park, Stourton Grange, Ravensthorpe, South Hiendley, Haigh, Micklefield, Greasborough, Low Stubbin (No. 2) Hickleton Main, Woodthorpe, Manor Haigh Moor, Primrose Main, Haigh Moor, White Lea, Howden Clough, Fence, Stubbin (No. 1), Shireoaks, Bowers (No. 2), Orgreave, Saville Pit, Gawthorpe, Rothwell, South Kirkby, Dewsbury Moor, Wortley, Broad Oak, Wharncliffe Silkstone (No. 2), Oldham, Halls, Granville, Bretby, Church Gresley, Cadley Hill, Donisthorpe, Measham, Cartwright, Hulton, Kilburn, Birchwood, B. Winning, Blackwell, Blaenavon, Codnor Lodge,
  1012
  Marchay, Marlpool, Pentrich, and Horsley Woodhouse Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  FRESH WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Pollock-shields, Glasgow, and George Henderson and others; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Newcastle-on-Tyne, Poole, London, Faversham, and Boughton-under-Blean; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Nottingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from West Derby and Liverpool, and Winchester (two); to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Denby Grange, Nostell, Newland, Sharleston, Jordon, Bowers (No. 3), Featherstone, Newmarket Silkstone, Grange, Stubbin (No. 1), Shireoaks, Bowers (No. 2,) Orgreave, Saville Pit, Gawthorpe, Roth-well, South Kirkby, Wombwell Main, Tong, Dewsbury Moor, Wortley, Broad Oak, Wyrley, Wharncliffe Silkstone (No. 2), Bispham Hall, Fitz William, Criggle-stone, Park Hills, Howden Clough, White Lea, Haigh Moor, Primrose Main, Woodthorpe, Hickleton Main, Greasborough, Low Stubbin (No. 2), Micklefield, South Hiendley, Ravensthorpe, Stourton Grange, Kiveton Park, Rockingham, Dena by Main, Snydale (No. 2), Birley (No. 2), Rawmarsh, Frystone (No. 2), Houghton Main, Stan-hope Silkstone, Carlton Main, Freston (No. 1), Whitwood Mere, Roundwood, Elsecar, Woolley, Altofts (No. 2), Liver-sedge, Good Hope, East Gawber, Snydale (No. 1), Swinton, Methley, Kippax, Wharncliffe Silkstone, Netherton, Fence, Waverley, Wharncliffe Silkstone (No. 3), Lofthouse, Halls, Granville, Bretby, Church Gresley, Cadley Hill, Doniethorpe, Measham, Cartwright, Hulton, Birchwood, B. Winning, Blackwell, Blaenavon, West Wemyss, Codnor Lodge, Marlpool, Marchay, Pentrich, and Horsley Woodhouse Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL DECLARATION.
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From England (London and other places), Ireland (Dublin and other places), Scotland (Edinburgh and other places), Wales (Milford Haven and other places), the Channel Islands, Victoria (Melbourne), Western Australia (Perth and Kalgoorlie), South Australia (Adelaide), New South Wales (Sydney), New Zealand (Auckland (nine)), Christchurch ((two) Mount Albert), Tasmania (Hobart), Canada (Quebec (two)), Toronto, Montreal, Johnson, and Palmerston), British Columbia (Vancouver and other places), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick (Prince Edward Island and other places), British Guiana (Demerara and other places), Barbadoes, Bermuda (two), Windward Islands (Grenada), India (Quetta, Cochin, Madras, Panneivilei, Secunderabad, Jhansi, Bombay, Tinnevelly, Akure and Ado, Mangalore, Mulky, Udipi, Basrur, Karkala, Puttoor, Kasargoode and Hosadoorg, Cannamore, Tallicherry, Dharwar, Brettigeri, Geledgudd, Bijapoor, Mercara, South Coorg, Nagpur, Gelhi, Calicut, Lucknow, Lakhanhati, Hyderabad, Aurungabad, Agra, Kishna, Lahore, Poona, Ootacamund, Coonor, Nelgeris, Bangalore, Kohenchey, Alleppi, Muttra, Vepery, Agnala), Singapore, Natal (Durban and other places (two)), East London, Zululand, Mauritius (five), Accra, Sierra Leone, Bonny, Lagos, Brass, Sherbro (six), China (Foo Chow, Full Ning), Aden, Syria (Alleppo, Alexanchretta), Palestine (Jerusalem, Nablus, Hebron, Jaffra), Turkey (Smyrna), Germany (Bonn), France (Paris), Prussia (Dusseldorf), Switzerland (Vevey and Geneva), Hungary (Budapest), Spain (Marin, Vigo), and Austria (Vienna); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  Petition from Willesden Green, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, etc.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1900–1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 76.]
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Accounts presented, for the year ended 31st March, 1901, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 77.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVEN LE DEPARTMENTS 1902–1903 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Copy presented, of Revised Estimate showing the several Civil Services and Revenue Departments for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1903 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 78.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 18th February, 1902, declaring that Nathaniel Pleass, Rural Post Messenger, Plymouth, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MODEL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered "for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1901; (a) total number of Principal Teachers employed; (b) total number of Assistant Teachers employed: (c) total salary given to Principal Teachers under sub-head E 1, Estimates; (d) total salary given to Assistant Teachers under same sub-head; (e) total additional cost of model schools; (f) total number of children in average daily attendance; (g) average cost per pupil in average daily attendance; (h) total number and cost of Pupil Teachers and Monitors taught in Model Schools during the five years ended June 1900; (i) total number of those at present in teaching profession; (j) ratio of average daily attendance to number on rolls."—(Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.)
(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Concentration Camps.
  MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has the photographs of concentration camps mentioned in the last Blue-book but not reproduced there; and, if so, whether he will place them in the Library of the House of Commons.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have placed those photographs in the Library, and also an album of similar photographs which I have since received.

  Native Labour in Rhodesia.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Reports have been received by the High Commissioner for South Africa from Sir Marshal Clarke as to the condition and treatment of natives in Rhodesia; and, if so, whether these and other Papers on the subject will be laid before Parliament.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House as to the arrangements for the procuring and control of native labour in and for Rhodesia; and whether correspondence and regulations now in force on the subject will be laid before Parliament.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Such Reports have been received, and I will lay Papers on the subject at an early opportunity during the present session.

  Peace Proposals.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary a Question, of which I have had no opportunity of giving him notice—whether his attention has been called to a Report which appears in the Press—I think it is the Birmingham Daily Post—stating that communications have been received by Lord Milner from General Botha offering to surrender on certain conditions; whether those conditions have—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a Question whicht he hon. Member would not be allowed to put down on the Paper. It is not in order to quote from a newspaper unless the hon. Member vouches for the facts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then may I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication from General Botha has been received by Lord Milner offering to surrender on any conditions; and, if so, what?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, none.

  National Scouts.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how the force known as National Scouts is recruited; whether the members of it are employed as soldiers or as police; what is the rate of pay; and whether any distinction is made in the treatment of their families as compared with those of burghers not similarly enrolled; and whether there is any intention of compelling or putting pressure on any portion of the burgher population to take service in this or any other force.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): These scouts are voluntarily recruited from surrendered burghers. They are employed as soldiers, and are paid five shillings a day. I am not aware of any distinction being made between the families of these men and those of other surrendered burghers. There is no intention of putting pressure on the burgher population to take service in this, or any similar force.
  MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the future settlement of South Africa, due consideration will be given to the desirability of employing these men otherwise than as a fighting force?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question. Notice should be given.
  MR. PIRIE: On a point of Order, the Question I wish to ask has reference to the National Scouts.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am quite aware that it refer to the National Scouts, but it does not follow that because one Question is asked about the National Scouts, every Questions on that subject is in order.
  MR. PIEIE: I will put a further Question down.

  Taal Monument at Burghersdorp.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether any steps have been taken to discover and punish the persons who recently overthrew and mutilated the Taal Monument at Burghersdorp; and whether the monument will he repaired and reinstated at the cost of the Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on this subject.

  Cost of the War.
  MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston): I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to avoid misapprehension as to the cost of the war in South Africa, he will lay upon the Table of the House an account of the actual cost of the war to the 31st December last, and his estimate of the cost of the war from that date to the 31st of March, which ends the present financial year, distinguishing between the amount expended in despatching troops to South Africa for the twelve months previous to the Boer ultimatum, and the total amount expended since the war began; also the amount which has been taken from general taxation to defray the cost of the war, and the amount which has been raised by way of loan and added to the National Debt.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhougton): The approximate cost of the war in South Africa on Army, Votes to the 31st December last, is £131,081,000; the estimated cost from 1st January, 1902, to 31st March, 1902, is about £15,000,000. It is impossible to state the actual charge incurred in despatching troops to South Africa for the twelve months prior to the Boer ultimatum, but in its connection I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary
  1018
  Paper C. 9531 of 1899. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I have no figures to give.

  Army Contracts—German Potatoes.
  MR. MANSFIELD (Lincolnshire, Spalding): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the total quantity of German potatoes sent to Africa for the use of our troops up to the present date, and whether any contracts for foreign potatoes are uncompleted; and, if so, for what quantities.
  LORD STANLEY: No German potatoes have been sent to South Africa by the War Office. Local orders given in the past by the military authorities in South Africa have led to the supply of some foreign potatoes, but such orders have ceased. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that there are any quantities of foreign potatoes still to be delivered.

  Royal Army Medical Corps in India.
  DR. THOMPSON (Monaghan, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the Government of India refuse to allow officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps the same pay and allowances as are granted to the officers of other branches of the Army of the same rank; whether this refusal is delaying the issue of the new Royal Warrant for reform of the Royal Army Medical Department; and whether he will use his influence with the Indian Government to remedy the grievance, which in the past has injured the interests of the Royal Army Medical Corps.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): No proposal has been refused by the Government of India, nor made to them, to assimilate the pay and allowances of the Royal Army Medical Corps to those of any other branch of the Army. The pay of officers of the Corps serving in India was increased somewhat in 1897, and compares favourably with that of most other branches of the Service. Various questions relating to the organisation of the Corps are engaging the attention of the Government of India, and I hope shortly to receive and consider their recommendations on the subject.

  Eastern Cable Companies.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON (Hythe): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to delay taking any steps concerning the Joint Purse Agreement and the Australian Message Fund, in which India is a partner with the Eastern, the Indo-European, and the Eastern Extension Companies, until after the House has had the opportunity of considering the final Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communication; and can he say when it is expected this final Report will be issued; whether he will arrange to issue a detailed account of the recent negotiations between the Indian Government and the Companies, which have resulted in a reduction of the Indian rate to 2s. 6d.; and whether he will state if it has been arranged that Government messages to and from India be carried at half rates.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: It is not proposed to interrupt or delay the negotiations which have, for some time past, been in progress with regard to a date for the determination of the Joint Purse Agreement and of the Australian Message Fund. I do not know when the final Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee will be issued. It is not proposed to publish any account of the negotiations which have led to a reduction of the Indian rate. The rate for Government messages between the United Kingdom and India has always been and will continue to be the same as that for private messages.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Is it not the almost invariable practice to submit for the consideration of the House the findings of and recommendations made by a Committee of Inquiry before they are finally and irrevocably carried into effect?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I think my hon. friend assumes that the Report of this Committee will in some way contravene the action we propose to take. I think he will find that that is not the case.

  Press Cable Rate to India.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India
  1020
  whether Press messages will participate proportionately in the reduced rates to India; and, if not, can he explain why they will not so participate?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The Press rate will be reduced from. 1s. 4d. to 1s. This is not in exact proportion to the reduction of the rate for ordinary messages, but the shilling rate appears to be a reasonable one, and I am not prepared to press the Companies for any further reduction at present.

  British Representative at Chile.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His, Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Republic of Chile is provided with any secretary to assist him in his duties; and, if not, whether a secretary will be appointed to assist in the work of the Legation, and to take charge of it in case of emergency.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W. — for Lord CRANBORNE): His Majesty's Minister in Chile is not assisted by a member of the Diplomatic Service, but receives a yearly allowance to provide himself with a clerk. When the Minister is away from his post, His Majesty's Consul General at Valparaiso is usually left in charge of His Majesty's Legation.

  Manchuria—Russia and American Trade.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to state whether the Russian Government have again recently renewed their assurances to the Government of the United States that Manchuria will never be closed to American trade and commerce.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Lord CRANBORNE): His Majesty's Government have no official cognisance of such assurances.

  Russia and Korea.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to. ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state

  1021
  whether the Government have any information as to the convention reported to have been made between Russia and Korea, by which the latter agrees not to lease or grant to any State, company, or individual the Island of Koje-do, the shore opposite, or any part of the coast thence to Chemulpho.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Lord CRANBORNE): I have nothing to add to the answer given by the late Under Secretary on 21st May, 1900. As he then stated, it is understood that an agreement exists between Russia and Korea where-by the former undertakes never to apply, either for her own use or for that of Russian subjects, in connection with commercial or industrial undertakings, for any land on Koje-do or on the mainland opposite, extending as far as Masampo, or on any of the surrounding islands. The Korean Government on their part under-take not to allow any other Government to rent or purchase land in connection with commercial or industrial under-takings in the territory referred to.

  Betting —House of Lords Committee— Suggested Legislation.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of recent disclosures, the Government propose to introduce a Bill dealing with the betting question during the present session.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): No, Sir. Apart from other considerations, any such Bill would be premature while an inquiry is in progress in another place on the whole subject of betting.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Committee that it should expedite its proceedings?
  *MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, certainly not.

  Timbering in Yorkshire Coal Mines.
  MR. PICKARD (Yorkshire, W.R., Normanton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what steps he is taking to enforce the special Rules A, B, and C,
  1022
  issued in or about last August, relating to timbering in coal mines in Yorkshire; whether he is aware that Rule B is not being acted upon by the colliery owners; whether he can define the party entitled to enforce these rules, specifying whether it be the owners, or the workmen, or the Home Office; and whether in the latter event, in view of the fact that the special rules are devised for securing the safety of life and limb, he will order a prosecution of any owners who may refuse to carry them out.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The inspector for the Yorkshire District is systematically inspecting all mines where any contravention of the rule is alleged; and I expect to have a report from him within a day or two. So far as the Home Office is concerned, the owner is responsible if the rules are not observed, and I shall not hesitate to authorise proceedings if I find any mine in which they are deliberately disregarded.

  Boys as Shunters on Railways.
  MR. BELL (Derby): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a fatal accident which occurred on the 20th February to Albert Chapman, who was only seventeen years of age, and employed as a shunter on the London and North Western Railway at Whaley Bridge; and if he has seen a report of the inquest, and the jury's rider that the deceased was totally incompetent, through youth and inexperience, for the work allotted to him, and that his death was due to over-pressure of work; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent lads being employed in such occupations.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): In addition to the newspaper extract which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me, the Board of Trade have received telegraphic notice of the sad accident referred to, and also a copy of the verdict of the coroner's jury, but have no information as to the rider mentioned. I propose to order an inquiry to be held by an assistant inspecting officer into the circumstances attending the accident. Very grave consideration would be

  1023
  required before introducing legislation to deal with such a subject as that referred to in the last paragraph of the Question.

  Poor Lawgraccination Officers.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (Leicester): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has decided to apply to the Court of King's Bench for leave to intervene in the case of Moore v. Keyte in that Court, which raises the question of the control of Boards of Guardians over their servant the vaccination officer, and should leave be granted to instruct the Law Officers of the Crown to argue for the Justices in support of the opinion of the Local Government Board; whether the assent of the Treasury is necessary, and has been obtained, for this expenditure; and whether, in order to secure the complete argument of the case in the interests of all Boards of Guardians, he is willing to recommend to the Treasury that pecuniary assistance for retaining the necessary counsel be afforded to the appellant Moore, a working man, or whether the Local Government Board will sanction the outlay necessary for that purpose by the Board or Boards of Guardians interested in the question.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.B., Thirsk): The answer to the first point is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. With regard to the last point, I understand that the appellant in the case referred to is supported by the local Anti-Vaccination Society. I could not undertake to adopt the course suggested by my hon. friend.

  Outdoor Relief in the Sleaford Union.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution, recently passed by the Sleaford Board of Guardians, commenting adversely on the prohibition of nonresident relief to a widow and children of a person who may have died in the union of his settlement, and declaring that the provisions of the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, 1852, call for revision; whether he is aware that the case before the Board was one in which a starving
  1024
  widow and her children could not be granted outdoor relief by either the Sleaford or the Boston Guardians; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Order to meet such cases as this.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: My attention has been drawn to the Resolution referred to. With regard to the particular case mentioned, it was the duty of the Boston Guardians to relieve the woman if she was destitute whilst resident in their union, and upon the information before me it would appear that they might have done so by granting outdoor relief. Moreover, the Sleaford Guardians might apparently have given her non-resident relief provided that they reported the case to the Local Government Board and obtained their approval. I understand, however, that the woman soon went back to reside in the Sleaford Union, where she was granted outdoor relief. It does not appear to me that any alteration in the Order is necessary to meet cases of this kind.

  Motor Car Drivers—Registration and Licensing.
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY (Lancashire, Ormskirk): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether His Majesty's Government would he willing to grant facilities for passing a Bill introduced by a private Member for the registration of drivers of motor cars.
  * MR. RITCHIE: I am not able to promise any such facilities.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the danger of incompetent persons driving motor cars in this country; and whether he will take steps to issue licences to competent drivers only, on the plan adopted in America.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I have received representations with regard to the licensing of the drivers of motor cars, but on my present infor-

  1025
  mation it does not appear to me that the danger from motor cars arises from a want of skill on the part of the drivers. I am afraid that there would be much difficulty in giving effect to the suggestion of my hon friend.

  Telegraphic Delays.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the increased and increasing delay in the delivery of telegrams in the chief towns of the United Kingdom during the past year; whether he will cause inquiries to be made of the postmasters in this country as to the cause of this delay; whether he has received complaints to the effect that telegraph staffs are undermanned; and whether he will also order fresh notices to be delivered enjoining more care in clearly transmitting telegrams on the part of the receivers and transmitters in the telegraph offices of this country.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBER LAIN, Worcestershire, E.): There was recently here and there some difficulty in obtaining an adequate supply of telegraph messengers, but the Postmaster General has no reason to think that there has been any general delay in the delivery of telegrams or any general want of care on the part of his officers in transmitting telegrams. If, however, my hon. friend will forward to the Postmaster General the information on which his Question has been based, inquiry will be made. The number of skilled telegraphists withdrawn for service in South Africa has somewhat diminished the efficiency of the staff at the offices affected, but apart from this the Postmaster General does not think that the telegraph offices are undermanned.

  London Telegraphists' Maximum Pay.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that from 1881 to 1891 telegraphists with 20 years service were in receipt of a salary based on a scale
  1026
  rising to £190 per annum; but that in 1902 telegraphists in London with from 20 to 25 years service are receiving £160 per annum, with small chances of attaining any salary beyond this point. And whether, in view of the assurance given by the Postmaster General that the London telegraphists possess the same prospects as their predecessors of reaching the salary of £190 per annum, he can state what steps are contemplated to give effect to this statement.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As has been several times explained to the hon. Member, the telegraphists in receipt of a salary of £190 a year were at the periods mentioned, and are now, those holding appointments on the class of senior telegraphists. The prospects of promotion to that class have always depended upon the occurrence of vacancies in it. The actual rate of promotion will, of course, vary from time to time, and the Postmaster General cannot undertake to make it uniform.

  South Kensington Directory—Grants under the Whitehall Code.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Board of Education can make grants except under the provisions of the Whitehall Code or the South Kensington Directory; and also under what regulations grants are made to children under fifteen years of age for elementary subjects in non-public elementary schools.
  THE VICE - PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The practice of the Board of Education is to make all grants to schools under regulations which are from time to time laid before Parliament; but this practice is prescribed by law only in the case of grants to public elementary schools. No grants are made by the Board of Education to any scholars in any school; but grants are, under a minute of July 6th, 1901, made to evening schools, in some of which there may be some children under fifteen receiving instruction in elementary subjects.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I will put another Question on this subject.

  Scottish Salmon Fisheries—Pollution of the River Girvan.
  MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that thirty dead salmon, besides quantities of dead trout, were taken out of the River Girvan between Killochan Castle and Girvan on Wednesday, the 19th inst., and that the river was discoloured as far down as Girvan, and whether he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the nature of the poisonous matter which has been introduced into the Girvan, and has resulted in the destruction of such a quantity of spawning salmon.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I am informed by the Fishery Board that the allegations made in the Question are substantially correct. With regard to the Question as to inquiry, I am informed that Mr. W. L. Calderwood, Inspector of Salmon Fisheries, has had sent to hfm for examination salmon, sea trout, and parr taken out of the Girvan, and he has found that the death of the fish examined has resulted from impossibility of respiration owing to the clogging of the gills by the densely polluted water. Mr. Calderwood states that the death of the fish appears to have been brought about by the pumping of grossly polluted water into a brook which enters the River Girvan near New Dailly from a coal pit which has been disused for a considerable time. The pit in question is the Dalquharran pit, which, it is understood, is joined under ground with the Bargany pit.

  Kenmare (Kerry) — Discharging Firearms from the Public Road.
  MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a full report of the occurrence of 31st December, when firearms were discharged by a shooting party across the public road between Templenoe and Kenmare, County Kerry, was forwarded by Mr. Thomas A. Sullivan, who witnessed it, to the district inspector in charge of the district, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the district inspector
  1028
  on 6th January; and whether full inquiry will be made into the matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM, Dover): Yes, Sir. The district inspector states that subsequently to acknowledging Mr. Sullivan's letter he wrote to that gentleman giving him the result of his inquiries. This communication, though sent to the same address as the first, was returned to the district inspector unopened. I have already stated that careful inquiries were made by the police in the matter, and that it is not believed by them that shots were fired from the public road, as alleged.

  Marlborough Street, Dublin, Training College.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any provision has been made in the Estimates, 1902–3, for placing the Government Training College, Marlborough Street, Dublin, in a satisfactory condition; and whether the houses in North Great Georges Street and Talbot Street, Dublin, used as residences for the students, have been rendered suitable for the purpose.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It has proved impossible to make provision in the Estimates for next year. The question will not be lost sight of, however, and will be further considered at a later date. The houses in North Great Georges Street and Talbot Street, used as residences for the students, are in repair, and have been made as suitable as their position will admit of.

  Direct Employment of Labour on Irish Roads.
  MR. SHEEHAN (Cork Co., Mid.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board issued to the county and rural district councils in Ireland any circular letters explaining the steps to be taken in formulating schemes for the direct employment of labour on roads under the supervision of the county and deputy surveyors; have any such schemes been submitted to the Local Government Board for approval; if so, when will they first come into operation; and will he state what forms must be complied with and steps taken before final official sanction of direct labour can be obtained.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A Circular was issued to Councils on the 16th September last. No schemes have been submitted to the Board for approval, nor can any such schemes be formulated until after 1st April next. When the order comes into operation on 1st April, the Board will prescribe the procedure necessary to be adopted by Councils.

  Agricultural and Technical Instruction in Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Instructor appointed under the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act in Queen's County charges at the rate of 1s. 6d. per week to each person attending his classes for one and a half hours instruction on three nights per week; and whether the terms of this official's appointment warrant the imposition of fees on members of the labouring community entitled to the benefits of the Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts, I am informed, have not yet been fully reported to the Department. It is not considered likely that the Instructor is charging fees on his own account, a procedure which would not be in accordance with the conditions of the scheme. Further inquiry is being made, however, and I will communicate with the hon. Member when the facts have been ascertained.

  Proposed Tramway to Enniskerry.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the Privy Council refused to allow the construction of a tramway from Dublin to Enniskerry, seeing that the application was supported by every public body interested, and was only opposed by the Dublin, Wick-low, and Wexford Railway Company.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Council, acting on behalf of the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company, raised the objection that inasmuch as the object of the proposed tramway was to unite places already directly connected by rail the scheme could not be sanctioned
  1030
  by Order in Council. This objection was upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

  Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture will consider the advisability of bringing rural workers, especially the occupants of labourers' cottages, under its operations'; will provision be made for the distribution of sound potato seed to those who possess cottage gardens; and will it assist in schemes for the introduction and development of cottage industries, for the encouragement of thrift, and other such purposes, and for the establishment of loan banks for the advance of small sums for remunerative purposes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department approves of County Councils including in their schemes under the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act provisions suitable to rural conditions, such as the encouragement of cottage gardens, poultry-keeping, swine-breeding, bee-keeping, and instruction in domestic economy. The Department also aids with loans of capital the establishment of agricultural banks. Labourers can participate in the seed and manure trials instituted by the Department, but seed is not distributed free and is only supplied for the purpose of experiment. The Department contemplate an extension of the schemes applicable to cotters.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Have any schemes been formulated by County Councils?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.

  Extra Police at Blacklion, Cavan.
  MR. M'GOVERN (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution which was passed by the magistrates at the last petty sessions, held in Blacklion, County Cavan, on the 17th instant, protesting against extra police being sent to the district, stating that no necessity existed for them; and will he accede to the request of the justices to have these extra police removed from the district without further delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; but, as already stated, I am in frequent communication with the local officers responsible for the peace of the district, and the extra police will be withdrawn when the necessity for their presence has passed away.

  Irish Land Purchase Bill.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to promise the introduction of the Irish Land Purchase Bill before Easter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the absence of my right hon. friend the Leader of the House, I cannot do more than express my own desire to introduce the Bill at a date which will enable its provisions to be examined during the recess.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think of introducing the Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule.
  MR, WYNDHAM: No.

  Education Bill.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Education Bill will be introduced, and why precedence has been given to the London Water Bill and to the Licensing Bill.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH (For Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am afraid I cannot at present name a day for the introduction of the Education Bill; but, with regard to the second part of the Question, I should hope that even Ministers may be allowed to settle the order of the introduction of their Bills. There was, however, a very good reason for introducing the Water Bill first, because it is necessary, by the Orders of the House, that that Bill should be submitted to a Select Committee as well as to the ordinary procedure of this House. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of stating that my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board proposes to move to refer the Bill to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses.

  The London Water Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give a more definite assurance as to the Second Reading of the Water Bill being taken on Thursday.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board is still unable to be with us but he assures us that he has every expectation of being in his place on Thursday; and in that case the London Water Bill will be taken. On the Friday the Vote on Account will be taken.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet): Will the Water Bill debate go on on Monday?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope that it will be possible to arrive at a decision on the Water Bill on Thursday but, if not, the debate will be resumed on Monday, so that the Procedure Rules will be further postponed.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Jeremiah MacVeagh, Esquire, for the County of Down (South Down Division).
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the regulation of the Burning of Human Remains, and to enable Burial Authorities to establish Crematoria." [Cremation Bill (Lords).]
  CREMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE [SUPPLY].
  *(4. 0.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I do not think it necessary to detain the House at any length in proposing the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury. It is practically identical with that to which the House agreed last year on March 4th. But Easter fell a week later then than in the present

  1033
  year, so that the number of Tuesdays of which private Members were deprived was the same as will be the case under the Motion I am now making. There is a considerable amount of Supply to be taken before March 21st—the latest date on which that Supply can be taken —which will have to be included in the first Appropriation Bill of the year. Among the Votes to be passed are two important Naval Votes and the Naval Supplementary Estimates, the whole of the Army Estimates, which must necessarily take considerable time for discussion, and the Vote on Account, which it is proposed to take on Friday. Then there will be Excess Votes, which I fear will be of a contentious character, for military purposes. Adding the Report stage of all these Votes, which, as matters stand, cannot be taken after twelve o'clock, the House will see that there is much financial business to get through before March 21st. It has already been decided that the first and earliest work of the session must be the consideration of the Procedure Rules; and for that purpose private Members have been obliged to surrender their Tuesdays. I am therefore asking no greater sacrifice now than that which has already been made, for I am quite sure that the hon. Member for West Newington, who has placed a Motion on the Paper for this evening, could not have supposed, after the Resolution of the House allocating Tuesdays to the consideration of the Procedure Rules, that he would be in a position to discuss his Motion. I ask the House in conclusion to remember that I do not make this proposal for the convenience of the Government, but rather that the Government may be criticised, and their financial proposals efficiently examined. However important the notices of Motion standing in the name of private Members may be, the business of Supply is infinitely more urgent. As this Motion was agreed to last year, when the principal objection was that the Session ought to have begun earlier—an objection which cannot be urged now—I trust that it will now be agreed to without lengthened debate. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean has given notice that he will oppose the
  1034
  Motion in the interests of the Resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Newington.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): When I did that, understood the Government proposal was limited to today. I did not know it was to be general.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Still, the notice had reference to a particular proposal. The Government has only put down two Navy Votes and the Naval Supplementary Estimates for tonight, and, as there has already been two nights discussion of Navy Votes, it might be possible to dispose of this business by nine o'clock. Then there would be ample time for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for West Newington, in which the right hon. Baronet takes so much interest. I merely throw that out as a suggestion which possibly may bear fruit. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, subject to the Order of 30th January last, the business of Supply, when set down by the Government on any Tuesday before Easter, shall have precedence of all other business."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN (Stirling Burghs): The right hon. Gentleman has submitted his Motion in that conciliatory and insinuating manner which the House is accustomed to from him. But he has used most extraordinary arguments. What is the reason that the Government wish unofficial Members, as we are told we ought to call them, to stand aside? It is that they are eager to be criticised. It is their desire to submit themselves to the scalpel that makes them submit this proposal! But there is something unusual in it, and there is inconsistency and confusion about the proposal which is not apparent on similar occasions. The Government has already taken Tuesdays, not because of any extraordinary pressure of financial business, but simply because the alteration of the Rules of Procedure is supposed to require continuous debate. The Leader of the House told us on the 28th January —"I do not think any Minister ever

  1035
  attempted to ask the House to deal with this question without taking facilities for the discussion of it, and that is all I propose to do." That is why the Government took Tuesdays. Now, owing to circumstances which we all deeply regret, Tuesdays are relieved from that embargo, and the right hon. Gentleman seizes the opportunity to ask for them for quite another purpose. His reasons do not appear at all conclusive. It is curious that this great pressure of financial business should only have occurred just at this time; because, if the influenza had not seized the Leader of the House, the Procedure Rules would have been discussed again, and the Government would not have thought of their financial embarrassments. We should have gone on this week and next week hammering at the Rules of Procedure, and the financial business would have stood over. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have made out a stronger case, and he must not be surprised if his Motion is regarded with suspicion under the peculiar circumstances.
  Sin CHARLES DILKE: I wish to add one word to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, and that is as to the serious nature of the Motions which are down for discussion on Tuesdays. We were told in the course of the debate on the Procedure Rules of the House that there never would be any difficulty on the part of the working classes in bringing forward, under the new Rules, any subject in which they were deeply interested. Now, the subject raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for West Newington deeply interests the working classes, and many Members on both sides have tried to find an opportunity of bringing it before the House. They were successful with the ballot in obtaining a Tuesday, which they had reason to believe after the statement of the Government they would be able to retain. This is a subject which most deeply moves the working classes throughout the country, and there are, I believe, more Members interested in this than in any other Motion. I do appeal to the House to show that favour to the rights of independent Members on both sides, which we have been told in the course of the discussion on the Procedure Rules ought to be shown, in the case of
  1036
  a Motion the discussion of which is so earnestly desired by so large a number of people.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): In the course of the discussion on the Procedure Rules, we have been constantly told that the arrangement of the morning and evening sittings would give so much greater facilities for Government business. I wonder, if that be the case, why the plan has not been adopted on this occasion—the first the Government have had of proving the soundness of their argument. Had they done so, they could have preserved private Members' rights, without prejudice to their own business. But I have always held that the divided day would not increase the facilities for Government business.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford): I hope that the House will not accept the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it seems to me that the chief reason he gave for it is utterly untenable. He reminded us that about this time last year a similar Motion was carried. But on that occasion it was absolutely necessary because of the state of Supply, which, as we were then told, was due to the fact that Parliament had not met until late. But we met five weeks earlier this year than last, and yet, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are in the same position with regard to Supply. Let us consider the position in which public business now stands. Though the House met five weeks earlier than last year, the session has been spent not in discussing necessary Supply, but in the ineffective and useless consideration of new Rules, which are so crude, so ill-considered and ridiculous that the most important of them has not stood the test of debate and has had to be withdrawn. Five weeks have been wasted in the discussion of ill-considered Rules which ought to have been submitted to a Committee. And now we are in the same position as we were last year at this time. I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken up a most unreasonable position, and that he must put forward much more conclusive arguments in favour of this Motion before he will convince the House that it is either right or just. If the

  1037
  Government are so anxious to have their policy discussed on Supply, why have they not brought Supply on before now? If they are really anxious to enable hon. Members to criticise their policy, let them prove it. What is their position in relation to Irish affairs? The other day I asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whose absence everybody on this as on the other side of the House regrets, whether an opportunity could be given for the discussion of certain matters in connection with the action of the executive in Ireland. He admitted in reply that it was a reasonable request, but when on a subsequent day, at his request, I repeated my Question and suggested that he should take the Irish Estimates and put down the Chief Secretary's Vote so as to give us the desired opportunity, he was obliged to tell me that owing to the exigencies of public business it was impossible for him to do it. Since that conversation took place certain transactions have occurred in Ireland which render it imperatively necessary for us to have a discussion on the action of the Irish executive. We endeavoured to secure it the other night on the Motion for Adjournment, but our action was entirely misunderstood, and the Irish Government did not condescend to answer us. Since then other matters have occurred in Ireland of the gravest importance demanding immediate attention and criticism—for example, the practice which has been adopted of calling a Crimes Act Court into being, and then, when the prosecution under the Crimes Act has broken down and the charge been dismissed, holding the accused to bail under the Statute of Edward III. and sending them to prison under worse circumstances than would be possible under the Crimes Act, because there is no power of appeal. I mention this to show the kind of question we desire to discuss on the Vote on Account. Unfortunately, of late years a practice has grown up of taking the discussion on what happens to be the first item on the Vote of Account, and then closuring the rest. Last year that practice was carried out with most disastrous results, and 17 millions were voted under the Closure after only one night's debate. If the same practice obtain next Friday, we shall
  1038
  have no chance of discussing Irish questions, and I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, like the First Lord, he should admit the desirability of an early debate on the matters I have mentioned, and that he should undertake to give a second night to the Vote of Account, and allow us on that evening to discuss the action of the Irish executive. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet us in the fair spirit I have suggested, I shall not be inclined to press my opposition very strongly, although I must add that I think it a very great hardship to working men engaged on our railways that the House of Commons should not be able to afford a single night for the discussion of a Motion such as that which stands on the Paper for tonight. I know of no class more deserving of consideration, remembering the great risks they run in the performance of their most arduous and harassing duties, and I would be glad to do anything I could to secure them a night for the ventilation in this House of their grievances.
  MR. BELL (Derby): I rise to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider what he has proposed tonight. The reason he has given for taking the time of the House, in face of so important a Motion as that which stands on the Paper, will create more criticism and give rise to more severe reflections on the action of the Government than will arise from any criticism on the Naval Estimates. Fully 100,000 men are greatly affected by the Motion which stands on the Paper, and a good many suggestions have reached me from men directly concerned in different parts of the country. Some of them have actually offered to bet that the Government would do something to prevent the Motion being discussed by the House today. I have always placed a little more confidence in the Government than that; but if this Motion is persisted in today, I shall he inclined to think that the suggestions of those who have written to me are more nearly correct than my own. It is not merely a section of working men who are interested in this subject. The general public is also affected, and I submit that this House should consider the safety and convenience of the

  1039
  travelling public almost before anything else. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman agree to give us until eight o'clock to discuss this Motion, seeing that he is not in a position to assure us that the Supply business will be completed by nine o'clock l I do urge him to reconsider his decision; otherwise, I shall feel bound to divide the House, in order to show the country who are in favour of the safety of working men and of the travelling public.
  *MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): I rise to support, in a few words, the appeal of the hon. Member for Derby and I do so with all the more pleasure because I have to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom some of us who have long interested ourselves in the hours of railway servants have been specially associated on many occasions in the past, and have always found him showing great personal sympathy with this cause. Hitherto, we have laboured under the disadvantage of never having in this House a direct representative of the railway servants. Now we have one in the person of the hon. Member for Derby, but it will be a matter of deep regret that on this the first occasion they had secured by the ballot an opportunity of discussing the grievance of the men, when the railway men's representative might be heard, this opportunity should be taken from them. Further I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact of having a few hours more to discuss the Navy Estimates is of sufficient importance or of such urgency as to prevent his making this very moderate concession to one of the most deserving classes in the country. The time of the House was undoubtedly taken from private Members with a view to a series of discussions, which are now practically adjourned. It was never contemplated that it should be devoted to Supply, and I do think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman might make this little concession.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): This is a day which was set apart for the procedure resolutions, and really the question of Supply is not involved at a11, because if it were not for the misfortune of the indisposition of the First Lord of the Treasury it
  1040
  would not have been given to Supply. Therefore, the whole question now is, shall this day, which was to have been given exclusively to the Procedure proposals, be given instead to this Resolution which affects so seriously one of the most important industries in the country. I cannot but think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that this Resolution is more important even than any Procedure Motion, and that that will be felt throughout the country and also by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): My right hon. friend has intimated to the House that, in his opinion, this Motion is brought forward practically at the same time as the similar Motion last year. That is not so. Last year the Motion came into effect on March 5th; this Motion is to come into effect on February 25th. Moreover, last year it was moved on March 4th, and did not come into effect until Tuesday, March 5th; that is another difference, because we had a day's notice last year, but no notice this year, and in addition there is the fact that it comes into operation eight days earlier. There is also another thing to be considered in connection with a Motion of this sort. The Government called Parliament together this year earlier than last year, and in addition they have already got more Supply than they had on March 5th last year. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to make a somewhat better case for the Motion than he has. Again, last year Tuesdays were taken for all financial business; this year they are only to be taken for that part of financial business which is represented by Supply. That does not come to very much, because, when they are taken at all, it does not matter very much what they are taken for. My object in rising was, however, to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to next Tuesday. I have balloted time after time, but I have never previously succeeded. I did, however, secure next Tuesday, which I had intended to devote to a very important subject. I hope my right hon. friend may be able to offer me some compromise. He has offered one to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. He has given

  1041
  him the time after nine o'clock tonight, if he can get it. I think, owing to the relative importance of the two subjects, if the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to nine o'clock I am entitled to eight o'clock. Will the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect that, if I can get it, I can have the time after the dinner hour on Tuesday next?
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the opinion of the House on this question, and that we shall be able to bless his mild rule. The importance of the subject proposed to be dealt with by the hon. Member for West Newington is very great. If the right hon. Gentleman looks into the statistics, he will find that last year non-fatal accidents and deaths among railway men considerably increased, and therefore it is incumbent on the House to give attention to the subject. This will perhaps be the only opportunity we shall have of bringing the matter before the House, and I hope, seeing the importance of the subject and the number of men concerned, that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what is evidently the general feeling of the House, and give us at any rate some portion of tonight to discuss it.
  *(4.38.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Appeals have been made to me against the Motion, but I hope hon. Members will believe that no one who stands in the position I occupy today ever makes this proposal without a great deal of regret. I am aware of the inconvenience and disappointment it must cause to hon. Members who had antici pitted having an opportunity of bringing forward matters in which they are interested. With regard to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I am afraid I can only say that he could never have gravely anticipated he could get next Tuesday for a Motion of the widest possible character with reference to treaties between this country and foreign countries, which, although important, cannot be said to be at all of an urgent nature. With regard to the other appeals made to me, I can to some extent meet them. I have already suggested that, if we are able to get the Supply which we have placed on
  1042
  the Paper, say, by half-past nine o'clock, then the House might turn its attention to the Motion in which hon. Members naturally take so great an interest. I understand that the hon. Member for Derby and other hon. Members who have spoken have practically admitted that two or three hours would be sufficient for the case to be stated and fairly considered by the House, and the hon. Member suggested that I should allow his Motion to come on first, and then take Supply. That would be impracticable under the notice of Motion which I have given, and which you, Sir, have put from the Chair. This, however, I will undertake to do. I am aware that the hon. Member has given special attention to these matters, and I am anxious to make this proposal as little disagreeable as I can. If, as I hope, the House will consider such Estimates as we have placed on the Paper in a favourable spirit, and within a reasonable limit of discussion, I have no doubt we shall be able to report progress about half-past nine o'clock, and then the hon. Member will have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion tonight. With regard to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, I feel I should do something to meet him, but I think he will admit that I am in a somewhat difficult position in the absence of my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend, I know, feels very strongly that the debate on the Vote on Account is really depriving the House of Commons of the opportunity of discussing the Estimates in detail, because it is clear that if we have two nights on that subject we shall have one night less to be devoted to the Estimates. But if the hon. and learned Member will consider the matter, I may be able to meet him in this way. We have placed on the Paper for Friday, in accordance with arrangement, the Home Office Vote first. I have made inquiries, and I understand that there has already been, in the course of this session, considerable discussion of important matters connected with that Vote, and that the matters now likely to arise on it are not, by any means, likely to occupy very considerable time, and we shall endeavour by means at our disposal, and I hope with the assistance of hon. Members below the gangway opposite,

  1043
  to limit the discussion on the Home Office Vote to a reasonable extent, and then I will place second to the Home Office Vote such a Vote as will enable hon. Members to have the discussion which the hon. and learned Member desires to initiate. Of course, if, by any mischance, we find it impossible to carry that out, although I do not see why there should be any difficulty in doing so, then the matter will stand over for consideration when my right hon. friend is able to return to the House. I am quite sine he will do his best to meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Member to have some opportunity for the discussion of a matter of great importance. I hope I have shown a desire in this matter to meet the wishes of the House, and that the House will now pass the Motion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied with the Navy Estimates?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We should like to get the Supplementary Votes also.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to leave me out of the matter.
  Mrs. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I do not withdraw in the least my opposition to the principle of this Motion, which is not supported on any grounds of necessity, because such a Motion could only be based on urgency, and the right hon. Gentleman made no such plea. What is
  the urgency of the London Water Bill or of the Procedure Rules, when everybody knows that the body of the Rules cannot come into operation until they are all passed, and that they cannot be passed before Easter? The right hon. Gentleman, for the first time in my recollection, has asked the House to accept a Motion of this character without attempting to put forward any reason. He made no case for the Motion, but of course we are at the mercy of the Government majority, and being anxious to obtain some early opportunity of discussing the action of the Executive in Ireland, and recognising that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman shows he is inclined to meet us in a reasonable spirit, we would be very foolish not to accept his offer. We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has good ground for believing that he will be able to give us an opportunity of bringing forward the question we desire to raise about eight o'clock on Friday next, and if he fails in that, owing to the debate on the Home Office Vote being prolonged, that the question will remain open. Of course we might obtain an opportunity of discussing the matter on Report; but in the circumstances, and without modifying our opinion that the Motion is unreasonable, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made out any case for it, I am disposed to advise my hon. friends to accept his offer.
  (4.44.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 48.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F.

  Brown, A. H. (Shropshire)

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd(Bolton)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ed. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancash.

  Denny, Colonel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Eveleyn (Aston Manor)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Bailey, James, (Walworth)

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J. (Birm.

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Chamberlain, J.Austen,(Worcr

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chapman, Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Balcarres, Lord

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.Ger'dW.(Leeds

  Clive, Capt. Percy A.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Balfour,Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Coghill, Douglass Harry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cohen, Benjamin Lewis

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Beach,Rt-Hn.Sir Mich. Hicks-

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bhownaggree, Sir. M. M.

  Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

  Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ. (Mancr

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colston, Chas. E. H. A.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Finch, George H.

  Bond, Edward

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Fison, Frederick William

  Brodrick, Rt.Hn. St. John

  Cross, Alexander(Glasgow)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert P.

  Flower, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S

  Rothschild, Hon. Li'nl Walter

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Round, James

  Garfit, William

  Long, Col.Chas. W. (Evesham

  Russell, T. W.

  Godson,Sir Angustus Frederick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Gordon,Maj. Evans (T'rH'ml'ts

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gore,Hn.S.F.Ormsby-(Line)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Greene,SirE.W.(B'ryS Ed'mds

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gretton, John

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

  Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Killop, J. (Stirlingshire)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hamilton, RtHn. LordG.(Midx

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Smith, H.C.(North'mb, Tyn'sde

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hardy,Laur'nce(Kent,Ashford

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.

  Spear, John Ward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset

  Hasslett, Sir James Horner

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  More, Robt.Jasper (Shropshire)

  Stock, James Henry

  Heath, Arthur How'd (Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Heath, James (Staffords N.W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Rt Hn.A Graham(Bute

  Thornton, Percy N.

  Hogg, Lindsay,

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Myers, William Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hoult, Joseph

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Howard, John(Kent, Favershm

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham)

  Penn, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Hozier, Hon.James H. Cecil

  Pilkineton, Lieut.-Col. Rich'd

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Williams, Rt HnJPowell(Birm.

  Jackson, Rt. Hon Wm. Lawies

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

  Renwick, George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Ridley,Hn.M. W.(Stalybridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ritchie,Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Sir William Walrond and

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham

  Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fuller, J.M.F.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Gilhooly, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crean, Eugene

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grant, Corrie

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cullinan, J.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Bell, Richard

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Black, Alexander William

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Blake, Edward

  Delany, William

  Harwood, George

  Boland, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Brigg, John

  Dillon, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hope, john Deans (Fife, West

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dunn, Sir William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Caine, William Sproston

  Edwards, Frank

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Caldwell, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Lambert, George

  Carew, James Laurence

  Ffrench, Peter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  1046

  1047

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings)

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas,J A(Glamorgan, Gower

  Lough, Thomas

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Lundon, W.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MaoVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Govern, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton,Jno.Lawson(Leeds, S.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rea, Russell

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Reddy, M.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murphy, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, FredW.(Norfolk, Mid.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

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

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Woodhouse,Sir J T (Huddersf'di

  Norman, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Young, Samuel

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Soares, Ernest, J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Williams

  Spencer,RtHn.C.R.(Northants

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

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Mr. M'Arthur.

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

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

NEW BILL.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EX-TENSION TO WOMEN).
  Bill for extending the Parliamentary Franchise to Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Galloway, Sir Richard Jebb, Mr. Macdona, Mr. M'Laren, Sir James Rankin, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Atherleycnes, and Mr Claude Hay.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EX-TENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  "For extending the Parliamentary Franchise to Women," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
  POLICE RESERVISTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to Pensions and Gratuities of Police Reservists called out on permanent service," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

  PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS) BILL.
  "To amend The Prison Act, 1877, with respect to the allowances of prison officers under Section 36 of that Act," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings, under
  1048
  Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Whereupon the Deputy Chairman (Mr. JEFFREYS, Hampshire, N.) took the Chair of the Committee pursuant to the Standing Order.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,962,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)said that he assumed that the general discussion which usually took place on the first of the two Votes, Vote A rand Vote 1, would be permitted tonight to take place on Vote 1. The general practice was to regard Vote A as carrying not only the discussion relevant

  1049
  to the Vote itself, but the general discussion that might take place on Vote A and Vote 1. That question did not interest him personally, because the matters to which he wished to call attention were within the four corners of the Vote before the House, but he thought the position ought to be generally understood by the House. Vote 1 was the Vote for the wages of the men whose numbers were voted on the previous evening. It was consequential to Vote A, and any question relative to the number of men was also relevant to the amount of money which was to pay for them. The most important points to which he wished to refer related to the comparative stages, which he had on several occasions brought before the House and Committee, but as to which he had been unable to obtain a sufficient reply. The magnitude of this as of other Votes was dependent not upon possible requirements of our own, but upon what had been done by the Navies of other Powers. The one test of comparative strength relative to this particular Vote was the numbers of the personnel of other Navies, and it was really with the desire to obtain some satisfactory official reply on the point that he again raised the question. In September last a well-known and recognised writer on naval subjects—Mr. Thursfield—challenged certain statements which had hitherto passed current with regard to the rival fleets of the world, and he made the positive statement that the number of officers and men voted in 1900 was in France 50,243, and in Russia 54,462, making a total of 101,705; while for the year 1901 he gave the figures 51,243 for France and 59,462 for Russia. These were much higher -figures than any he had been able to obtain. The writer went on to say:
  "I am not at liberty to give my authority for the foregoing figures, but, though not official, it is unimpeachable,"
  and he declared that inquiry in the proper quarters would establish the correctness of the figures. If the Admiralty had such information or were able to obtain it, it was their duty to put it before the House, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would state exactly what the Admiralty did know about the numerical strength of foreign
  1050
  fleets. He did not know whether those figures were correct or not, but he held in iris hand a letter from an official connected with the Admiralty, in which it was stated there had been practically no increase in the personnel of the French Navy, and that the numbers were 42,500 in 1884, and 43,C00 in 1901. There was a considerable discrepancy between the two sets of figures, but whether the figures of his informant or those of the writer in The Times were correct was not of great importance. The point to be emphasized was that this recognised writer on naval matters declared that information to be procurable; and if it was procurable by him it must be procurable by the Admiralty; and if the Admiralty had it, they ought to give it to the country. Was the hon. Gentleman in a position to lay before the House such a statement as was certainly supplied to him when in office in 1894 or there-abouts—a statement calculated on the same basis as our own Estimates—of the a anal service list of the Fleets of Europe? Great changes had doubtless taken place since 1894, but if such a statement could be made then, a corresponding statement could be made now. He was perfectly aware that there were grave difficulties in the way of making a proper comparison, especially when dealing with the French Navy, and any conclusions to be drawn from such figures would have to be corrected and modified in regard to certain peculiarities which they knew to exist. Such information would afford one other test of our comparative strength. The tests of a comparison of the respective tonnage, numbers of ships, an d of financial outlay, each of which was comparatively simple and easy, were open to all the world, but that for which he was asking, which was an undeniable element in the question of comparative strength, was absolutely unknown to the House.
  Another matter to which he desired briefly to refer was that of the promotion of officers of the navigating class in the Navy. According to figures which had been put into his hand referring to the number of promotions from the rank of commander, out of 65 candidates promoted in the last four years, only six had been navigating commanders, and he believed the same proportion would be found to prevail in regard to the pro-

  1051
  motions from the rank of lieutenant. There could be no dispute about the relative position of navigating commanders and lieutenants, and he understood that there was great dissatisfaction at the small proportion of promotions from that class. He did not know whether the matter had been brought formally before the Admiralty, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could state whether any real grievance in that respect existed, and if so, whether the Admiralty intended to take any steps to remedy it. An hon. Member, who spoke with practical experience of the Navy, had adverted to what was practically a branch of the same subject. The grievance of the navigating officer was likely to be of the same character as that of the poor officer. His grievance was that those who could afford to do things for the service out of their own pocket obtained an unfair advantage in regard to promotion. He (the hon. Member) did not say that that was an established fact, but it was the case that among navigating officers there was the feeling that they had not the same chances of pro motion as other men had, and in the interests of the service that feeling ought to be removed. He hoped that before the discussion closed the hon. Gentleman would give the House some information on the points he had raised.
  M. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said he approached this question of naval expenditure from an entirely different point of view from that which had been adopted in the debate hitherto. To a lover of peace, progress, and economy, the present expenditure was almost appalling. In less than twenty years the expenditure on the Navy had trebled, having increased from about £10,000,000 to £34,000,000. The entire Navy Estimates laid before Parliament last year amounted to £31,155,000, but to arrive at the correct figures there had to be added the amount expended on naval works under the Naval Works Act. A very significant fact was that the more the expenditure grew, the more did certain people in the country and in the House demand further expenditure. At one time, a two-Power-standard was thought quite sufficient, but now a three-Power-standard was required.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks on this Vote as far as possible to the men. I understand it has always been the custom in Committee of Supply to take the general discussion on Vote A, and on Vote 1 for Members to keep as much as possible to questions arising on the wages or the money voted for the men.
  SIR FORTESCUF FLANNERY (York-shire, Shipley)asked whether the Deputy Chairman would not re-consider the ruling he had just given. There had been a variation of that practice, inasmuch as the general discussion had been allowed on Vote 1. He did not say that that was always the case, but it was certainly within his recollection that such a proceeding had been a
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think that has generally been when the discussion has not taken place on Vote A. The general discussion takes place either on Vote A or on Vote 1, but I understand that, according to the precedents of the Committee, the general discussion does not take place on both.
  MR. FLYNNsaid it must be obvious that when they were discussing the wages of the men it was more germane than general expenditure. He viewed this increase in the number of men with great alarm and apprehension, for he thought that this country was embarking upon a wild and reckless course in piling tip these expenses year after year. These Estimates were simply a premium of insurance paid for commerce, and a poor country like Ireland was called upon to contribute no less than about £3,500,000 towards this insurance. Cape Colony contributed—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must not go into the question of financial relations. The question before the Committee is not how the money is to be raised, but how it is to be spent.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that although Ireland, contributed this large sum, she could not even get a gunboat to protect the fisheries along the coa
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS (Salford, N.)desired to say a few words in reference to the dissatisfaction and discontent which prevailed among the officers of Engineers of the Navy in regard to their status as officers, and chances of promotion. He would be ungrateful if he did not acknowledge the steps which the present Board of Admiralty had taken in regard to opening out a few higher posts for Engineer Officers. Previously, whilst every Executive Officer had one chance in eight of attaining the rank of Captain, an Engineer Officer had only one chance in 45. These new additions made the chance one in 32, but even yet, the Engineer Officer had only one fourth of the chance of advancement of the Executive Officer, and this could not be regarded as satisfactory. The Secretary to the Admiralty stated in his opening speech that the demands of the Engineer Officer both for promotion and increase in numbers were inconsistent the one with the other; but surely that was only because the advancement was blocked at the upper end. There was one block now at the post of Chief Engineer, but this was only because many ships, which on account of their size were entitled to have Chief Engineers, were put off with officers of less standing and experience than Chief Engineers. If this matter alone was dealt with, as it ought to be according to the regulations, it would be one avenue of promotion more. One thing demanded by the Engineer Officers was the power of inflicting the same minor punishments as have long been held by the Officer of Marines, and surely an officer at the head of 300 artificers and stokers ought to be entrusted with equal powers to those given to an officer in command of 100 Marines.
  He had formed one of a body of 50 Members of Parliament who waited upon the First Lord last year in reference to this subject. Some comments had been made upon the interjections of the First Lord as to whether it was suggested by the deputation there was any want of discipline in the stoke hole under present arrangements. He believed the personality of the present Engineer Officers had enabled them to keep their men fairly in hand up to the present time, but every one must be aware that power of
  1054
  more immediate action would be required in time of war, and it was for this we ought to prepare, quite irrespective of the feelings of the officers.
  Again, the Secretary to the Admiralty had suggested there was some attempt to "put back" the engineers. He was not aware of it, but he was aware that there was a strong feeling existing that there was an attempt to repress the engineers, and thereby to prevent them from attaining that position which the order of evolution in the Navy was calculated to confer upon them. This attempt at repression had worked so much effect as to cause the engineers of the north-east coast to declare that there was a positive feeling of aversion towards the engineer service in the minds of those who might be expected to furnish the applicants for posts in the service, and surely it was a positive public danger that such a feeling should exist. The one remedy demanded on all hands was that the status of the Engineer Officer should be improved, and that he should be given the same position as the Executive Officer, so that his position should be commensurate with his responsibility. A short time ago there was an accident happened to the "Sanspareil." Several officers were somewhat severely punished, but the Engineer Officer was censured for not exercising his authority! Surely a strange proceeding when it is remembered that authority is the one thing denied to the Engineer Officer. The effect of this was obvious in the steadily decreasing number of qualified young men offering themselves for this branch of the service. And now this question had to be asked, Who is it that is standing in the way of this long demanded reform? He did not know even the names of the present Sea Lords of the Admiralty, and he was quite prepared to believe they were gallant and distinguished officers, but it was their predecessors who had withstood the introduction of steam power into the Navy, who had opposed armour plating, breach-loading guns, quick-firing guns, and the removal of masts and yards, and the question he asked was, was a body with such traditions as this a fit body to

  1055
  form an impartial judgment on a question so nearly affecting the position of its own particular caste?
  The Engineer-in-Chief was denied a seat at this Board, although he was the head of the engineering profession in the service, whilst the Civil Lord, who might know nothing of the subject, was a member of it and took part in its deliberations. Surely it could not be right that the Engineer-in-Chief should be excluded from this Board, and he even yet trusted that the First Lord would listen to the claim he had put forward for giving executive rank to the Engineer Officers, and thereby rehabilitate the service in public estimation.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (Gates-head)endorsed the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member who had just spoken in favour of the engineering branch of the Navy. He could say truly that the engineering branch of the Navy was the worst treated of any branch in the Navy. For a great many years no progress had been made whatever in the direction of giving the engineers a status commensurate with their responsibilities on board ships. In his own naval engineering days, they had simply to keep up steam and drive the engines, and they used to be able to do that without any fear of a disaster, because in those days they had no water-tube boilers. The reason engineers were treated in this way was that the old caste prejudice still obtained on board every ship in the Fleet. The Executive Officers had never felt as they should feel towards the engineers. When it was first suggested by Henry Bell, who built the "Comet," the first steamboat, in 1803, to put steam power into our men-of-war, although the suggestion was backed by Lord Nelson, the then First Lord of the Admiralty declined to touch steam at all. From that date to this there had always been a spirit of opposition to the scientific branch of the Navy. Suppose that an engineer of five years service was put on board a torpedo boat and a midshipman was put in command. If a fireman refused to do duty, that engineer could not punish him. He had to take the engineer before the junior officer. Look at the degradation of the scientific man! There were 200
  1056
  or 300 men in the stoke-hole of a warship, and yet the Chief Engineer dare not say one single word to the firemen for neglect of duty. If he did so, the firemen complained against the engineer. In these circumstances how could they expect a contented body of men in the engineering branch on board His Majesty's ships? What would be the result in war time? That would be the time to test the men upon whom we had to depend for the safety of our ships. The refusal to allow engineers to rank with the officers was due simply to an old prejudice. Referring to the way in which the engineers were treated in the matter of pay, the hon. Member said the Chief Engineers were paid 16s. to 30s. per day. A Fleet surgeon, who had a few pills to make up or a little medicine to give to the sailors occasionally, received from 30s. to 36s. per day. What were a Fleet surgeon's responsibilities in comparison with those of a fleet engineer? A Fleet surgeon was not a better trained man than a fleet engineer. He was not so well trained scientifically. Comparing the pay of engineers and surgeons, he said the former received 10s. to 12s. per day, while the latter received from 14s. to 20s. per day. Why should the surgeon, who was not a better educated or so scientific a man, be higher paid? Among the clerical staff, paymasters received 14s. to 33s. per day.
  He would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, who had made a close study of the various branches of the Navy, whether that was giving fair play or fair pay to the engineers. He could not aver it was. The hon. Gentleman's sentiments were known to him years ago about this state of things. The engineers were the poorest paid men in the Fleet, considering their responsibilities, and he did not wonder that they were discontented. They had very little chance of promotion and no status was given to them. Why was there no proper status given to them? He spoke from a national point of view. This was not a Party matter. He put it to the Committee on the grounds of common fair play. A chief artificer in the engine-room received 7s.to 7s. 6d. per day, and an artificer 5s. 6d. to Cs. 6d. per day. He did not consider that adequate for the work they had to do. He received

  1057
  many letters from engineers in regard to their condition and treatment on board the ships. These poor fellows did not dare to write. They were afraid to do so lest they should be found out. If they were found out, hon. Members knew what would happen. The pay in the engineering department was miserably out of proportion to the responsibilities of their work, and their status ought to be made equal to that of any officer on the quarter-deck.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid his hon. friend had placed the grievance of the engineers before the Committee in so far as it related to the matter of pay. He desired to place the matter on a higher and more national basis than his hon. friend, and to say that the efficiency of the Fleet was in danger by the present state of matters with regard to engineers. His hon. friend had compared the pay of the engineers with that of the other civil officers in the Fleet. The question was whether the conditions of service and the rates of pat for engineers were such as to secure for the Fleet the services of the best and most efficient men. It was not a question of appealing to the Committee ad misericordiam for something better for the engineers who were in the service. The true test for the Committee was whether or not the conditions of service were such as to secure the most efficient service in the engineering department. He desired to express the sincere disappointment of many hon. Members that the deputation which the First Lord of the Admiralty was courteous enough to receive upon this subject had had no larger result. It was true that offices had been created, such as chief inspectors and inspectors of machinery, to which the engineers could be promoted, but that was the extent of the concession which had been granted by the Admiralty to the engineers. The Secretary to the Admiralty in his speech indicated that one of the objects which he desired was to bring the Naval Engineers into the traditions of the Navy. Everyone agreed that that would be of immense advantage to the Fleet, but how would the engineers be brought into the naval traditions so long as they were kept as a civil branch of the Navy? If the engineers
  1058
  were kept on the same basis as the doctor, chaplain, and paymaster, and had no fighting rank, how could they be expected to enter into the naval traditions, the fighting traditions of the Navy? The question of pay was, no doubt, a serious grievance, but he ventured to say that the engineers felt infinitely more strongly the comparative degradation which was put upon them by being denied executive rank. This reform must come. He believed positively that it would come, but it would only come by agitation in this House, because agitation among the engineers themselves would not be consistent with Naval discipline. Nor would it be what his hon. friend and himself, who were concerned in this matter, would for a moment desire to see established among them. They had only to rely on the sense of justice and fair cling of this House, and the feeling that the Admiralty must ere long wake up to find that they had not sufficient engineers to do the work of the Fleet. Lord Selborne said that the increase in the Reserves had kept pace with the other service ratings. This matter of the Reserves was being referred to a capable Committee under the presidency of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division; but here again the engineers were at a disability. On that Committee there were three admirals, a paymaster, and representatives of every branch of the Fleet, except the engineers. Why was that? Engineering evidence would be taken by that Committee, and when the question of debating the Report arose, he claimed that there ought to be an engineer either from the Fleet or elsewhere, who was not committed in any way to any opinion on this matter, but who would have the opportunity of bringing his practical knowledge to the assistance of the Committee. It was not yet too late for the Admiralty to make good the deficiency, and he appealed to his hon. friend to do so if he possibly could. He would point out, in regard to the figures in the Estimates, that while they had a large number—although none to spare—of deck or executive officers for the Naval Reserve, there was a much less number of qualified applicants in the engineer branch. One - fourth of the executive officers were waiting for commissions, but only one-seventh of qualified

  1059
  engineers were waiting for commissions. Then only 73 of the 400 engineers in the Royal Naval Reserve had been trained in warships! Three years ago the Admiralty announced with great satisfaction that they intended to give the opportunity to mercantile engineers to go on board. His Majesty's ships for the purpose of training, but, unfortunately, the response was merely nominal, simply because the conditions were not sufficiently good to compensate mercantile engineers for the loss of time. The result was that on a normal establishment of 400 engineers available for assisting the Fleet in war time, only 73 had had any warship training. He appealed to hon. Members who knew engineering matters to testify how far an engineer belonging to the Mercantile Marine, who had had no training on a warship, would be of any good in time of war.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: No good at all.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he would not go quite so far as that, but having regard to the different conditions under which an engineer from the Mercantile Marine would have to work, his usefulness would be a comparatively negligible quantity. He appealed to his hon. friend to take steps either to bring this matter definitely before the Manning Committee, or in such other way as he thought fit, so as to improve the condition and training of the Royal Naval Reserve engineers, both in the dockyards and at sea. His hon. friend who last spoke had referred to the great difficulties which the engineers had to encounter in regard to the new type of boilers with which they had to deal. A very serious complaint had to be made against the Admiralty, that, although this was the third night of the debate on a question of the most urgent importance in regard to the Fleet, the House was still in ignorance of the Report made to the Admiralty by the Boiler Committee. In the absence of the Report he desired to speak with great caution; but he expressed the opinion that they seemed to be in danger of rushing from experimentalisation of one kind of boiler, into the other extreme of experimentalisation as regarded another kind of boiler.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I understood that this discussion was confined to the Vote for the men.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYthought that his hon. friend might have confidence in the Chairman. He begged to say that it was a little hard on, and, he ventured to say, scarcely fair to hon. Members who took a deep interest in this question, that after the Report of the Boiler Committee had been — he would not say withheld, but had not been placed within the knowledge of the House—his hon. friend should not have trusted himself to the Chairman on a question of order. Now, in seven vessels of the Fleet, Babcock and Wilcox boilers were to he fitted, and one with combined Belleville and Babcock and Wilcox boilers, two with the Niclause boilers, one with the Durr boiler, and one with the Yarrow and Durr boiler. He would not make a word of complaint about fitting one or two vessels with the Babcock and Wilcox boilers, but—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must restrict his observations to the Vote for the men—the engineers.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid that if the Chairman considered he had been going too far beyond the strict line of the Vote, he would not pursue it, except to say that in regard to the necessity for training the men, he conceived that to have two ships fitted with each type of boiler was reasonable, but not seven or eight. The latter was carrying the matter further than experience at present justified. He expressed sincere regret that this House had not had full opportunity of discussing the boiler question. Passing from this, he wished to emphasise the statement made by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, upon the question of the Colonies identifying themselves with this country in making provision for the Fleet, not only in men, but in money. He would make a suggestion. At the time of the Coronation, authoritative representatives of every one of the Colonies would be in London, and the opportunity might be

  1061
  taken to test their feeling as to some system of federation as regarded a Navy for the whole Empire. They knew how difficult it was to get a common basis. Three of the Colonies had already come forward to our assistance—the Cape, Natal, and Australia. The amount was small, but a start had been made. It might be that, at first, they could not get anything like the proportion of contributions that they expected. He cared nothing for that, so long as they made a commencement. Then there would be a Navy for the defence of the Empire, contributed to by every part of the Empire, and representative of every pert of the Empire, showing that they were as ready to fight afloat for the Empire as they had shown themselves ready to fight for it on shore.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)thought that more information ought to be afforded to the House as to the casualties which occurred in the Navy. About a month ago he wrote to the Admiralty for information, and he did not think he was very well treated. In his letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, he asked would it be possible to obtain a Return of the casualties involving loss of life since the 1st of January, 1891, setting out the nature of the disaster, its cause, and the number of lives lost. The answer he got in debate the other night, and it was quite appalling. The hon. Gentleman said that two Departments of the Navy h id been working for a fortnight to give him the answer to his Question. If that was the case, he thought the records of those Departments must be in a bad way. Statistics of all accidents should be kept so as to be accessible to every Member of the House. There were the accidents to the "Viper" and the "Cobra," and there lied been others. Could the Secretary to the Admiralty give them any information about the number of casualties for the year? There was a warship lost off the coast of South Africa, and something had been said about the accident to the "Sybil" and the "Condor" as well. He would like the hon. Gentleman to promise a Return of all these casualties, for he was sure that such a Return would be appreciated by many members of the Committee.
  COLONEL ROPNER (Stockton)called attention to the feeling existing among the engineers, and expressed the opinion that unless something was done, hereafter there would be considerable difficulty in obtaining the engineers required for the Navy. He feared there was still a prejudice against the engineering class, as a class, in the Navy, and for that reason many years ago, the engineers of our modern steamers were not thought of much account. He had been a shipowner for thirty or forty years, and he recollected that when his firm first sent their steamers to sea, they scarcely ever considered the position of their engineers on board. However, the Merchant Navy soon found out that, after all, the sailing of those steamers depended much more largely upon engineers than upon the sailors themselves. They found that unless they recognised the position of the engineers on board, they could not maintain that order which was required in the stokehole in order that the interests of the owners might be safeguarded. He was afraid that the prejudice against the engineers at that time had been carried down to this day. Engineers, as a class, were vastly different men from what they were twenty or thirty years ago. Today they were a highly-educated set of men, and he hoped the Admiralty would recognise that the time had come when their status must be improved. They formed about a third of the whole of the men employed on board our men-of-war, and no wonder that they claimed to be considered in this matter. A great amount of money was now spent upon the education of engineers, possibly as much as upon medical men, and could it be wondered at that they claimed to be treated in much the same way? In the speech which the Secretary to the Admiralty made last night they were assured that this matter had his full sympathy. He hoped that what had been said that evening would have full weight with the Admiralty. These men were tied hand and foot, and he was very pleased to hear the Secretary to the Admiralty state that he was alive to what was being done by other Navies in this matter. If the signs of the times were read correctly it would be seen that there were several European Powers

  1063
  envying the position of the British Navy, and an effort was being made by them to bring their Navies up to the same position which ours had attained. Much as we prided ourselves upon the position of our Navy, that position was considerably endangered today, for we required, above all things, good engineers. To-day we sailed our ships without masts, and we relied on the engines; therefore we ought to have a large number of reserve engineers ready to take their places in time of need on board the men-of-war. How could we expect to get those men in the Reserve if we did not offer them sufficient advantages to lay themselves out for a career in the Navy? The time might come when they would be required. He had every confidence not only in the Secretary to the Admiralty but also in the Admiralty itself; and when they once became aware that this was a matter which absolutely required the attention of our statesmen he believed that the Government would at once give it the attention which it demanded.
  MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the unsatisfactory state of the canteens on board ship. As many hon. Members were aware, the food which was supplied to the sailors by contract was not very satisfactory, and the men had to supplement their dietary out of their own pay. Consequently, canteens were allowed on board with the consent of the Admiralty, and it was to these canteens that he desired to call the attention of the Committee.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's remarks would be more in order on Vote 2.
  MR. KEARLEYsubmitted that he was perfectly in order in raising the question on this Vote because his argument raised the contention that the men were obliged out of their scanty pay to supplement their rations. He should show that the men were deprived of part of their pay in this way.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman would be more in order in discussing this question on Vote 2.
  MR. KEARLEY: I agree it would be more in order on Vote 2 but is it out of order on this Vote?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I rule it out of order.
  MR. ARCHDALE (Fermanagh, N.)said he merely rose to take exception to one or two remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead, who was so respected by the House that everything which fell from him was received with great interest. As one of the Executive Officers who had been accused of having a "caste feeling" against the promotion of the engineering officers, he felt bound to say a few words. It was a good many years ago since he was at sea, but when he was on active service he always entertained feelings of the greatest friendship with the engineering officers on board. They had not the advantages which they have now, but every Executive Officer in the service sympathised with the engineers, and hoped they would receive all they asked for.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Why have they not received it?
  MR. ARCHDALEcould not say, but it was certainly not due to any caste feeling on the part of their fellow officers. The hon. Member had spoken of an engineer, with fifteen years seniority, being put in charge of the engines of a torpedo boat of which a midshipman was in command, but that was not so; that was never done. The hon. Gentleman also expressed the opinion that the Lords of the Admiralty were against this reform or any reforms. Again, that was not the fact. His opinion, based on the Statement issued by the First Lord, and the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in introducing the Estimates, was that the Admiralty was showing a very progressive attitude, and he hoped that attitude would be continued. Training for the reserves coming from the Colonies was much needed, and he hoped ships would be placed in the Colonial ports so that the men there might be trained. It was with satisfaction that he heard that many naval officers were being brought into the Admiralty

  1065
  to assist the Lords of the Admiralty in the discharge of their duty. It was a principle that he thought might be carried much further. As regards destroyers and torpedo boats, there was no better way of training young naval officers than to put them in command of these boats for a short time. Now that there was no mast and yard work, no young officer could acquire the habit of quick decision and nerve which he used to get by sailoring work, except by going about in torpedo boats and destroyers, and having to decide at once the course which they should adopt when they became senior officers in charge of other ships. For that reason he hoped it would be possible to employ plenty of destroyers, and that when small disasters occurred they should not be regarded in a more serious light than any accident happening to any officer on the ship he commanded. He thought that warrant officers ought to receive more consideration than they at present received; that a bluejacket who, by hard work, good conduct, and a considerable amount of brain work, had attained the rank of warrant officer, should be better treated with regard to pay, rank, pension and allowances. The only increase they got on becoming warrant officers was less than 6d. a day; they actually received only an extra 5d. a day, and had to buy new uniforms and belong to a new mess, and were really worse off than the petty officers. Warrant officers, in his opinion, should receive Gs. a day. He also considered that after eighteen years service in that rank, they might fairly be given the rank of chief warrant officer. He asked that the children of warrant officers should he granted compassionate allowances. The children of all other officers were granted a compassionate allowance, and he thought it was only fair that this concession should be granted to the children of warrant officers. He thought also that any officer in charge of stores on board a man-of-war should receive 1s. a day, in order to make him careful in guarding and looking after the stores on board ship. He appealed also for some amelioration of the position of the naval schoolmasters, who, though not a numerous body of men, were well deserving of the best consideration of
  1066
  the Admiralty. In conclusion, he congratulated the Committee upon the way in which this Vote had been debated. It must be a matter of great congratulation for the service and the country that naval affairs were always raised above the level of Party discussion.
  AIR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)said there were two considerations which were always apt to be forgotten when treating with the Navy—one was that it took double as long to make an able seaman as it took to build an ironclad, and the other was that during the whole glorious career of the Navy its success had always depended on its splendid personnel and not upon the design of the ships. It was an admitted fact that from the time of the Armada down to the end of the Napoleonic Wars, our ships were always inferior in design to those against which they fought, and that we had always won owing to our personnel. There was no single point in which we could do so much to improve the personnel of the Navy as in improving the status of the warrant officer, for the reason that if the status of the warrant officer was improved it would loosen promotion through all the ratings of the Navy. A man became a warrant officer between twenty-eight and thirty, and he then found a brick wall set up in front of him, between hint and further promotion. He had to wait until he was over fifty years of age before he could become chief warrant officer. If the career that was offered to a private soldier in the army was contrasted to that which was offered to a boy entering the Navy, there was no comparison between them. The private soldier had a line of promotion preserved for him along the quartermaster ranks; he could rise to a lieutenant and captain, and there was one case where a private rose to the active rank of major and retired with the honorary rank of colonel. There was no such opportunity in the Navy, where a man was certainly in an inferior position to his fellow who joined the Army. Look at the importance from the national point of view. A man became an ordinary seaman at the age of eighteen.

  1067
  The nation did not get its full value out of him until he became an able seaman at the age, say, of twenty-one. The nation then got his full service for seven years—until he was twenty-eight. Then the first opportunity came to him to leave the Navy, and it was found some years ago that almost a third of the men who were given the opportunity of either leaving or re-engaging left the Navy. Obviously the best value for the nation was got out of men between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty-eight. It cost £300 to make a boy into an able seaman, but one-half of that £300 would be saved in the case of each individual man who could be induced to re-engage for a second term of ten years, because for the initial expenditure of £300 twenty years instead of ten of the man's life would be spent in the service of the nation. By dint of appeals in the House, and doubtless a sense of justice in the Admiralty, certain concessions had been obtained during the last five or six years, and as a result, instead of 33 per cent. failing to re-engage, as was the case ten years ago, the percentage now was twenty-three. If there could be given to warrant officers in the Navy a career such as was given to warrant officers in the Army, along the quartermaster line, he believed a large proportion of even that 23 per cent. would be induced to re-engage. A practical proof of that statement was the fact that the warrant officers were making that their principal demand. If, out of the more than 1,000 men who every year failed to re-engage, 40 could he induced to re-engage by such a prospect, there would probably be saved double the amount of the Admiralty Estimate of the cost of creating such a line of promotion. It was impossible to draw an exact analogue between the quartermaster line in the Army and a similar line in the Navy, but it was probably not beyond the ingenuity of the Admiralty to reserve certain classes of work for warrant-officers with commissioned rank, and to create a line of promotion that should be exclusively for those who joined the service as boys, thus giving them a career in life, which would not only be an act of justice to those concerned, but also a means by which the nation would save much of the expenditure in the way he had suggested,
  1068
  and knit together the whole service in an even stronger and more patriotic manner than at present. The matter had been brought before the House regularly for many years, but he had never been able to understand why such a line of promotion was not granted. The idea had been approved in many quarters, and it was only by a process of exhaustion that he had been able to guess—it was nothing more than that—that the real opposition came from the Naval Lords. He did not know whether that was correct or not, but at any rate they were the only persons he had been able to find who were not in sympathy with the suggestion. He hoped the present Board of Admiralty would make a more serious effort than had hitherto been made to carry out what had been regarded in the Navy as a pledge given by the present Secretary of State for India when First Lord of the Admiralty some twelve years ago in respect to this matter.
  MR. DUKE (Plymouth)said the Board of Admiralty had apparently not yet recognised that it was the largest employer of skilled labour in the country. There was—as one found by actual contact with the skilled men in the service—a certain ineptitude in the dealings of the Board with its skilled employees. That arose, he thought, from want of appreciation of the fact that the Board of Admiralty now no longer directed the destinies of a fleet entirely manned by seamen, but that it commanded services of vast numbers of mechanics—workmen who, if they were not in the Navy and under naval discipline, would be able to bring their requirements constantly before the attention of their employers. The question of the engineers had been very much debated in the naval ports, but he had never heard the matter discussed in a spirit which was in any way contrary to the spirit of discipline which his hon. friend had commended to the engineering branch of the Service, or in a spirit of anything other than absolute loyalty to the traditions of men who were officers and members of the Naval Service; but there was undoubtedly a strong feeling among them that the efficiency of their own service would be promoted and there would be an encouragement which was not now given if their rank were made an actual rank by giving them the same measure of

  1069
  disciplinary power as those holding rank corresponding to theirs, and perhaps more particularly by qualifying engineer officers to take part in the proceedings of courts martial, at any rate where engineer officers were concerned. Matters of that kind were valued more by the engineers than considerations of pecuniary profit. He sincerely hoped the Board of Admiralty would recognise the spirit in which the engineers approached them with regard to these matters, and that concessions would be made, even if all that was asked on their behalf could not be granted. As to the warrant officers, he thought his hon. friend had an opportunity, which he shewed a disposition to seize, of providing something better in the way of a career for those men. He noticed in the Memorandum of the First Lord that the late military superintendent of the Naval Ordnance Department had been replaced by a naval officer. If the Board of Admiralty could see their way to make that Department a Naval Department, and to substitute for military or civilian officials deserving men from the warrant officer rank in the Navy, it would be a concession which would be of the greatest possible advantage in encouraging warrant officers. He could not give the exact figures of the relative promotions from warrant officer rank to executive rank as compared with promotions from the ranks in the Army to commissioned rank, but the comparison was startling—units in place of hundreds. In fact, for all the gallant services warrant officers rendered in charge of guns and detachments in South Africa, he believed the total number of promotions to executive rank had been three, while the number of promotions in the Army to commissioned rank was certainly numbered by scores, if not by hundreds. He did not say there was a complete analogy between the Services, and that they could as easily carry the promotion on to the commissioned ranks in the Navy as in the Army, but if the warrant officers had, at any rate before the end of their career, the possibility of attaining something in respect of rank which gave them a prospect in life and promotion among their fellow men, and also the prospect of some material advantage in employment, such as the Naval Ordnance Department might give them, it would be a great encouragement to the men. With regard to the mechanical ratings in the Navy, there were little
  1070
  discrepancies and disparities in the promotion of the various classes which were constantly brought in a perfectly proper way to the notice of Members for naval ports, but, somehow, they did not get remedied. He was told by a naval officer with regard to one of these matters that it was only a question of a ½d. a day and a stripe on the arm for a limited number of men, but there was nothing, in his opinion, that would conduce more to the efficiency of the service than that that little concession should be given with regard to one particular mechanical rating. He (the hon. Member) suggested that the Admiralty had not quite appreciated the position of an employer of skilled labour in dealing with its mechanics, and he asked the hon. Gentleman to consider whether there was not some possible means of re-considering, from time to time, the position of such classes of men as those to whom he had referred, so as to remove small anomalies by a systematic process which would be consistent with the discipline of the Navy, and would very often prevent the necessity of discussions in the House. If there were a system at the Admiralty of dealing with the skilled employees, it might very well be extended to the dockyards, and then Members for dockyard boroughs and naval ports would not have the responsibility which they now had of fathering the appeals which were made in season and out of season to the Board of Admiralty to deal with grievances within the Department which really were differences between master and servants, and which master and servants ought to have some regular mode of dealing with between themselves without the intervention of Members of Parliament, and without having to resort to anything which appeared like a breach of discipline.
  *(6.45.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There are many points which have again been raised, which I will endeavour to answer, and I regret that some hon. Members who have asked me Questions are not present to judge of the value of the answers I am able to give. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee has put a most reasonable Question with regard to the personnel of foreign fleets as compared with our own. With regard to our own Fleet, I can give him official data, but with reference to foreign fleets, I can

  1071
  only give him the best information we possess. I believe I am right in saying that the personnel of the two fleets which the hon. Member referred to may be estimated to be in round figures 51,000 on the active list of the French Navy and 59,000 in the Russian Navy. Of course hon. Members know very well that we must add to these figures very large numbers of men who are not on the active service list of their respective Navies. For instance, in France the whole of the maritime able-bodied population under the age of fifty, amounting to about 90,000 men, are liable to be called upon for service in the Navy in time of war. There is also this fact to be remembered—that while, in the event of war, the welfare of this country would necessitate our maintaining our mercantile ships on the sea, it would be very advantageous to France and Russia, from both a military and a pecuniary point of view, to withdraw their highly subsidised ships from the sea and transfer the men on board those ships to the Navy.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Have you any other figures?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have the figures for Germany—31,000. In Germany there are also reserves.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will you give a Return?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will not pledge myself to give a Return, because these are not official figures. It is the best information I can obtain, and these figures are obtained from the best sources open to me. The hon. Member for West Islington has charged me with what amounts to discourtesy for not having given him the information he required. I can only repeat that the hon. Member asked me for information going over a very large area indeed. He asked me to give him a return of all the casualties which had occurred as the result of accidents to ships. I told him that if he would define what he wanted in any way, I should be glad to give him the information which he required. I told him that many ships had had sight accidents, had gone aground and so on, and there had been many accidents which were not attended with
  1072
  injury to life and limb. I informed the hon. Member that I would gladly give him the particulars of any ship's losses or any accident to life and limb which had resulted from such accidents if he would give me the form in which he wanted the information. I gave him a list of the injuries in the case of boiler accidents in torpedo destroyers. I may say that I have received, while this debate has been going on, the first fruit of my researches, and I shall be glad to give the particulars I have received to the hon. Member. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Shipley Division, I wish to explain that no one regrets more than I do the absence of the Report upon which he commented. I may say that when I made my appeal to the hon. Member for Gateshead to postpone the debate on the Boiler question to a later date, I explained that I proposed, if he agreed, to postpone the discussion till the Report was issued. As a matter of fact, the Report was only received in the ordinary way a short time ago, and was at once circulated. I think it will be admitted that it is reasonable that the members of the Admiralty Board should have the opportunity of reading that Report before it was sent to the printers. Only at the commencement of this debate I received an explanation as to why the printers had not been able to supply it up to the present time, and the delay was due to the fact that the printers had to prepare a large number of double-sheet diagrams. I assure the Committee that there has been no desire whatever on the part of the Admiralty to withhold this Report.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he did not suggest that the Admiralty had any desire to keep the Report back.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A considerable portion of the debate has been taken up by an exceedingly moderate but forcible discussion on a matter which we have already debated — the question of the engineers. Most of what has been said is well said, and has been helpful, but I do not think that everything that has been said was either well said or helpful. It

  1073
  is not a fact that there has been any failure in the engine-rooms, and if it be asked whether the Admiralty are giving a sufficient engine-room complement, I say that, generally speaking, they are. It has been complained that the engine - room complement is not sufficiently large; but engineering Members know very well that the conditions which obtain on board merchant ships cannot be reproduced in the Royal Navy. Many merchant hips always steam at a high speed from port to port; but the times when ships in the Royal Navy steam at a high speed are exceedingly rare. It is absolutely impossible to frame the engine-room complement in the Navy on a perpetual full-speed basis; it would not be economical, and it would be physically impossible on account of the space available.
  There has been, I admit, great pressure on the engine-room complements owing to the introduction of the Belleville boilers, and there have been additions made to some of the engine - room complements on that account; whether those additions have been as large as some hon. Members think desirable is an open question. I do not think that on board other ships there has been any work imposed on the engine-room complements which has been more than they have been able to perform, and to perform well. While I am most ready to receive guidance from members of the Committee, I think hey ought to admit that there have been, not only professions of willingness to meet their reasonable requests, but that there has already been considerable progress. I am obliged to the hon. Member who reminded me of one change which has been made in the last few weeks by which the chances of promotion in the engineering branch have been increased from one in forty-five to one in thirty-two. That in itself is a very substantial improvement. The contention raised by the hon. Member for Salford is not one that I can accept, namely, that there can be a great increase in promotion in the Engineer Branch concurrently with a large addition of numbers. We have two branches of the Service growing up side by side in the proportion of about two to five, and the rate of promotion is
  1074
  equal until we come to the position of captain of the ship. But it is admitted on all sides that it is not desirable to give the post of captain of a ship to a member of the engineering branch; and, when we remember that there are 400 ships in commission, each of which has a captain or commander, and that, so far as those 400 ships are concerned, there is no equivalent line of promotion in the engineering branch, there must be constriction of the upward flow of promotion when we come to that stage. Therefore it does not help the matter merely to say that there shall be more promotion in existing conditions. I believe we must look for some other remedy if we are to attain the end which I think is desirable—to enlarge the opportunities which are given to engineer officers.
  A remark had been made by one hon. Member to the effect that it was impossible for the engineer officer to state his claims in this House, but I think that remark was rather ungrateful. The remark is perfectly true, but I think the engineers have succeeded in finding very able and numerous advocates. It does strike me, however, that what is true of the engineering branch is true of every other branch of the Navy, and although we have had in this debate many speeches from advocates of the engineers' cause in every section of the House, we have not heard a word about the other branches of the Navy. It is the duty of the Admiralty to arrange matters so that all branches shall receive the treatment which is due to them in respect of their particular services. It is no use suggesting that there has been any degradation, for that is the word that was used in connection with the engineers. I can say from my own knowledge, and I think it will be borne out by every engineer officer, that whatever may have happened in the past, there is nothing in the social life of the ward-room on board His Majesty's ships at the present time which inflicts any stigma or reproach on engineer officers. Every man is taken exactly for what he is, and an engineer officer is on an absolute equality with every other officer. I know that that does not exhaust the question. We are told that there are some questions of pay which require to be remedied. I think the

  1075
  question of pay is not quite fairly stated by the hon. Member who points to alleged discrepancies between the rates of pay of those in the engineering branch and of some others, because he omitted the charge pay and other allowances to engineer officers. But the question of pay is not the real matter agitating the minds of hon. Members interested in the engineer officers. With regard to the question of punishment, what is claimed for the engineer officers is something which is conceded to no other officer on board ship. I would point out that the lieutenant with the same seniority as the engineer has absolutely no power of punishment. He is in that matter in precisely the same position as an engineer officer. The officer in charge of the guns in the turret has no authority whatever to punish any of the men under his command. These men, like those under the control of the Engineer, can be punished only by the direct authority of the Captain or Commander. The principle on board a man-of-war is that no man can be punished till twenty-four hours after the offence. This applies to all ranks. It s true that the officer of Royal Marines has certain limited powers of punishment over his own men, and I am aware that there is, as has been stated, some difference of naval opinion as to whether similar powers might not be extended to the engine room. We must, however, in this matter, go forward, if at all, very carefully. It is very easy indeed to make mistakes. While we are charged with inflicting degradation on one class of officers, I would point out that there is not another country in the world which I believe gives the engineer officer as high a position as that which he enjoys in the British Navy. There is no position in the French or German Navy comparable to the position held by our own engineer officers. [An Hon. MEMBER: "The United States."] There is the case of the United States, where an experiment of the kind which some hon. Members seem to approve has been made. That experiment has been pronounced, on the authority of the chief engineer of the United States Navy, and I believe, in the opinion of almost all experienced officers in the United States Navy, to be a failure. I have a state-
  1076
  ment before me by the head of the Engineering Department that there has been retrogression in the engineer branch of the United States Navy during the last two years. There was an attempt made, perfectly bone fide, to assimilate the two branches of the service in every particular. It seems to me that the attempt was made in a way which was doomed from the outset to failure. It was an attempt to make the two branches coalesce, not from the beginning, but a stage when each had become specialised; but it has not succeeded.
  I wish to say one word in regard to the attack made by another hon. Member on the Naval Lords of the Admiralty. I must say that it appeared to me to be most unnecessary and most unjust, not to say discourteous. We were told that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty were the men who opposed the introduction of steam-power, ironclads, breach-loading and machine guns, into our Navy. Well, but I would point out that we have ironclads, steamships, breach-loading guns, and that we have no longer masts and yards. All these things have been introduced by successive Boards of Admiralty, and I think we are indebted to the Naval Lords who for 150 years have administered the Navy of this country at any rate in such a manner that the country has been secure from invasion by any foreign Power. It was rather unfortunate that the only use made of the name of Nelson in the debate was to suggest, on the slender authority of some unauthenticated legend, that he would have been against the introduction of steam into the Navy. I believe the Naval Lords are very jealous of the privileges and rights of all branches of the Navy, and I believe they are ready now, as they have been in the past, to be impressed by every reasonable appeal, but they are not prepared to make changes without due consideration. Something was said about a Colonial contribution to the Navy. It is perfectly true, and I am glad to think it is so, that we are to have the advantage of a conference of representatives of Colonies this year, and I think it would be the greatest mistake if we allowed that conference to assemble here without bringing this question before its members

  1077
  and ascertaining what are their views and the views of those they represent with regard to some contribution to the Navy.
  References have been made to the case of warrant officers. They have great claims upon the Navy. The hon. Member was misinformed in stating that the warrant officers do not receive commissioned rank. A very large number do retire with commissioned rank, but I know that the hon. Member always holds the view, which he frequently impresses on the House, to the effect that it might be possible for a certain number of warrant officers to receive earlier in their career the recognition of commissioned rank. There are difficulties, as he knows, which do not make the case of the Navy on all fours with that of the Army. It would not be always a boon to the warrant officers to be transferred to the wardroom early in their career and compelled to take up duties there after they have been serving as warrant officers. Therefore the analogy of the paymaster in the Army was not entirely relevant. It is most important that the warrant officers should receive every possible encouragement, and I am glad that my hon. friend the Civil Lord tells me that by the Report which has been made with reference to the re-organisation of the Naval Ordnance Department, it is proposed to give some further employment to a certain number of warrant officers, but I do not think that exhausts the possibilities of giving further advantages to so important a class of men of the Royal Navy. I do not know that I have passed over any definite question that has been addressed to me. I hope I have not done so, but if I have, it is due to the fact that my memory is not so good as it ought to be.
  *(7.10.) SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)said the speech the hon. Gentleman had just made was an extremely important one. He was most glad it was authoritatively stated that there was to be a conference of colonial representatives this year on the Navy. That was a great advance on the statement of the First Lord on this subject. The First Lord's statement referred simply to Australia, with respect to which there was already an agreement for the
  1078
  protection of her local floating commerce. The First Lord's only reference to this was limited to what the future composition of the Australian squadron would be.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: On this Vote the Committee can only discuss the wages paid to officers and men.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he would not pursue that matter. He presumed he should not be out of order in expressing agreement with the hon. Gentleman that the matter of the maintenance of the British fleet, when it came before the conference, should not be approached in any carping or criticising spirit, but in a spirit of general good feeling and good will, relying on the strength of the case to bring it to a conclusion satisfactory to all parties. In regard to the engineer question, he hoped his hon. friend and the Admiralty would take note of the whole tendency of the debate every time it was discussed. It was a matter to which public attention had been directed, and upon which the mind of the House of Commons was fixed, and the Admiralty would have to deal with it. He asked for explanations as to the three discrepant statements in the Estimates, and the statement of the First Lord with respect to the increase in the number of commissioned officers.
  MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)asked whether, if any compact as to contributions to the Navy from the Colonies were entered into at the colonial conference, that arrangement would be submitted to the House of Commons before being concluded.
  (7.15.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said his only object in moving to reduce the Vote was to give to those who held strong views on the question of a contribution by the Colonies towards the expenses of the Navy an opportunity of placing their votes on record. In reference to what fell from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the proposed Conference with the representatives of the Colonies this year, he desired to say that he heard that with great satisfaction. It was the first definite declaration they had had of an intention on the part of the Government

  1079
  really to put this question of the representation of the Colonies in the Navy and a contribution by them to the expenses of the Navy on a proper footing. If the British people were going to go on with this expenditure on the Navy to an almost illimitable extent, the time had come when those great and wealthy Colonies should be asked to pay their share. It appeared to him to be an absurdity that the Colonials, for whom he had great respect and who had always treated him with generosity, should go on talking about their loyalty and devotion to the mother country, if they were not prepared to take on their shoulders a portion of the enormous and crushing burden which the mother country now bore practically alone.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That a sum, not exceeding £5,462,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Blake, Edward

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  O'Mara, James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Engene

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway,N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

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

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

  Dillon, John

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Captain Donelan.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brig, John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Butcher, John George

  Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

  Arroll, Sir William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Caine, William Sproston

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cavendish,V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Beach, RtHn.SirMichaelHicks

  Cawley, Frederick

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bell, Richard

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Chapman, Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MR. BROADHURSTasked that before the vote was taken, an answer should be given to the Question he had put to the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think it would be in order, or even at all desirable, that we should discuss this important matter on this Vote. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have it very carefully under consideration. We do not intend to approach the Colonies by any means as beggars. We believe they desire, so far as they are able, to share with us the burden of Empire. Of course the House will be made acquainted with anything that takes place.
  (7.20.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 49.)

  Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chath'm

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ritchie,Rt.HonChas.Thomson

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(D'nbigh)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney,Col.W.(Salop)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kitson, Sir James

  Round, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Knowles, Lees

  Runciman, Walter

  Doxtord,Sir William Theodore

  Lambert, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon SirWilliam Hart

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Emmott, Alfred

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareh'm

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Fergusson, Rt HonSir J (Manc'r

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leigh Bennnett, Henry Currie

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

  Finch, George H.

  Leveson-Gower,FrederickN.S.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Levy, Maurice

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith,AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Spear, John Ward

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Spencer, Rt.HnC.R.(N'rthants

  Garfit, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley,EdwardJas.(Somerset

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p

  Manners Lord Cecil

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gorst, Rt. Hon, Sir John Eldon

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Grant, Corrie

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W.F.

  Talbot, Rt HnJ.G.(Oxf'd-Univ.

  Greene,SirEW(B'ryS Edm'nds

  Maxwell,W.J. H.(D'mfriess're

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.

  Greville, Hon. Roland

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Thomas,JA(Glam'rgan, Gower

  Griffiths, Ellis J.

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt.Wm.

  Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptford

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, RtHnA.Graham(Bute

  Wallace, Robert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Myers, William Henry

  Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wharton, Rt. Hon.John Lloyd

  Heath,ArthurHoward(Hadley

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Heath,James(Staffords.,N.W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willams

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whiteley,H(Ashtonund, Lyne

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hope,J.F. (Sheffie'd, Brightside

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, Fred. W(Norfolk,Mid.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard,John(Kent, Favers'am

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Howard,J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Woodhouse,SirJ T(Huddersf'd

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Price, Robert John

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

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Purvis, Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rea, Russell

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Renwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sir William Walrond and

  Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire

  Ridley, HonM.W. (Stalybridge

  Mr Anstruther

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1901–2.
  2. £200,000, Navy (Supplementary).
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the Committee ought to have some explanation of the extraordinary difference of £38,000 between the original and revised Esti-

  1083
  mates in connection with the charter of the "Ophir" for the Duke and Duchess of York. There was practically an increase of fifty par cent. He could quite understand that a princely visit should be on a princely scale, and if the Estimate were exceeded by a comparatively trivial amount nothing would be said about it. But he thought that in the circumstances the Committee was entitled to some explanation.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that there was no excess in the Vote. The difference was caused by the longer voyage owing to the ship visiting the Cape and also by a longer period of detention in Canada than was estimated.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he would not detain the Committee further, but that explanation ought to have been given.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported tomorrow; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

  Railway Servants—Hours of Labour.
  (7.15.) CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)rose "To call attention to the excessive hours worked by railway men and other disabilities they suffer; and to move that in the opinion of this House, the Government should exercise their power to call for Returns of the hours exceeding twelve per day worked by railway servants, and of cases where work is resumed with intervals of less than nine hours." He desired to draw attention to the wording of this Resolution. He moved it in this form because he was given to understand by his hon. friend the Member for Derby that he had had the assurance of the Board of Trade that he was not armed with powers to deal—
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central) (interrupting)said that there had been a mistake in this matter. The Board of Trade had power to deal with the subject under the Act of 1889.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that was just the point which he was about to bring before the House, namely, that the
  1084
  Motion was moved in this form through an error. On investigating the matter, it had been found, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said, that by the Act of 1889 the right hon. Gentleman had the power. He (Captain Norton) had therefore thought that he should move the Motion in this form—"after the word 'should' instead of the words 'be armed' insert the words 'to exercise the," because it was quite clear that if the right hon. Gentleman had power—and personally he (Captain Norton) maintained that he had, and the right hon. Gentleman himself now agreed with it—he had not fully exercised it. He would not attempt to enter upon the general question as to the advisability of limiting the hours of labour for railway servants further than to repeat what he had stated in previous debates in the House, viz., that the question, first of all, of limiting the working hours of adult males was acknowledged on all hands to be one that it was the duty of the Government to deal with. In this particular class of labour—he would not say when they were dealing with a monopoly, for be preferred not to use that word—when they were dealing with great corporations responsible for the welfare and health of 400,000 employees over a system of fifty railways, and responsible also for the lives of hundreds of thousands of passengers yearly, there could be no doubt whatever that it was well within the duty of the House to limit the hours of labour of those employees to any extent that was necessary for the safety and well-being not only of the employees themselves, but also of the passengers. A. Question was put by the hon. Member for Derby on the 21st January, to the President of the Board of Trade, and that Question practically embodied the whole case which they desired to lay before the House. In his Question the hon. Member pointed out that what were known as "the running staff," namely the drivers, firemen, and guards of certain trains, and more especially of goods and mineral trains on various railways throughout, were frequently working hours ranging from between fourteen and twenty and upwards at stretches, with intervals of only from three to six hours off together. The

  1085
  reply which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade gave the hon. Member for Derby was as follows—
  "The Government have no evidence before them that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member."
  He (Captain Norton) would not attempt to place that evidence of facts before the right hon. Gentleman, because he was sure it would be fully placed before him by the hon. Member for Derby in a manner more convincing. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, referring to the Act of 1893—
  "But I must remind the hon. Member that the Act pre-supposes specific representation in each case or class of cases."
  A week later—on the 27th January—the right hon. Gentleman put a further Question. He asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that during the ten weeks ending the 21st January no less than forty-one separate and distinct representations were made by him to the right hon. Gentleman, and that in 125 cases the stretch of duty ranged from fourteen hours to thirty hours. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Board of Trade had received the representations referred to by the hon. Member, and were dealing with them. But the right hon. Gentleman exonerated himself by saying that the representations concerned in all only eleven companies — that fifteen of them were from one Scotch Company, five from another Scotch Company, and only one from an English Company. In other words the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman for not dealing with the Question was that the defaulters in those cases were limited to three particular railways. One would have thought that that was a great reason why the right hon. Gentleman should deal with the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That was a reason not for not dealing with it, but for not applying to all the railway companies generally for the Return for which the hon. Gentleman asked.
  CAPTAIN NORTONpointed out that the reason for asking for these Returns was not so much that they might be furnished by the railway companies, as to bring the matter before the public—to call public attention to the fact that the railways
  1086
  were failing in their duty—in order that pressure might be brought to bear upon those of them who failed to do their duty. There was one special reason why he had taken up this case — which properly belonged to the hon. Member for Derby—and that reason was that there was no one who attached so much importance to discipline as he (Captain Norton). He knew how necessary it was where large bodies of men were employed on various kinds of duty, and where matters could not be regulated with the case that they could be regulated in factories and workshops, that discipline should be maintained. The railway servants themselves throughout the Kingdom had shown a marked unwillingness and disinclination to bring serious complaints before the Select Committee in 1892. Major Marindin made it quite clear that the tendency on the part of the men was to be absolutely uncomplaining, and when asked as to whether they did their turns on duty cheerfully and uncomplainingly, Major Marindin answered, "Yes, I think so." There was scarcely any necessity to place the evil of long hours before the House. It had been proved over and over again, and in many cases of bad accidents it had been shown that they were due to men having been on duty for an undue length of time. Everybody knew that when a man was over-worked, and his nervous system was over-strung, a complete lapse of memory was likely to ensue. It was not unnatural for a man who had been in a box for nine or ten hours to suffer from complete lapse of memory. Major Marindin, putting it at its lowest point, declared that these long hours on the part of the men were bad economy. The hon. Member for Derby would prove that there had been practically very little improvement through the whole railway system since the Royal Commission sat. The Report went on to say—
  "It involved, as they knew, very serious risks. As a matter of fact, out of 257 inquiries which took place in four years the number of occasions on which attention was called to long hours was no fewer than forty-seven. The number of cases in which the men had been at fault was found to be eighteen, whereas the accidents attributable to the working of long hours by the men were nine."
  So far as the safety of the public was concerned, the diminution of the hours would give them security. He fully

  1087
  admitted the difficulty in which the railway companies were placed, and for that reason he did not suggest that the hours of all railway servants should be limited to a fixed time. In his opinion, such a thing as that was impossible, owing to the variety of duty which the men were called upon to perform, and the difference between "the running staff"—as it was called—and what might be termed the stationary staff. It had also been suggested that there should be a classification of signal boxes, but he thought such a thing as that was scarcely possible, and everybody knew perfectly well that men would rather be on duty in certain signal boxes for twelve or fourteen hours than put in six hours in other boxes. He did not approach this question so much from the point of view of the men as from the point of view of causing as little friction to the managers of the railway companies as possible; secondly, causing diminution and liability to accidents affecting passengers; and thirdly, diminution in the number of accidents occurring to drivers, shunters, guards, and other servants of the railways. He did not, therefore, take a one-sided view of the matter. But he found that many cases of accident arose from long hours, and that no sufficient effort had been made by the companies to bring about an alteration. He might use the same words with regard to the Board of Trade, and say that no sufficient effort had been made by them to exercise their influence and control over the railway companies with regard to this matter. The companies might do very much more than they did to rectify the evil. He was not one of those who would like to see the Board of Trade take over the management of the railways of this country, because he thought that that would be unworkable. He only suggested that they should use the influence they undoubtedly possessed to bring pressure to bear on the defaulting railway companies to make them reach the standard to which certain great railways had arrived. The Select Committee of 1892, in dealing with this question, said—
  "Your Committee think that, in the interest of safety, this practice should, as far as possible, be diminished, so that each day should stand by itself, and that the arrangements of the com-
  1088
  pany should be so framed as to prevent the booked time of drivers, firemen, and guards from exceeding sixty-six hours per week or twelve hours in any one day."
  That was a very good statement against those who were for making the hours of labour for drivers, firemen, railway guards, and so forth, a fixed number of hours; but it must be remembered that the drivers of what were called shunting trains, which carried goods and left them at various stations, had a far easier time than men who took express trains down the main line. These men did not themselves object to take an excursion down the line, say to Brighton, in a day of twelve hours, because, during a great deal of that time, though they were available for duty, they were not actually engaged, and were, therefore, resting. But with regard to those who were put to too great a strain, those cases the right hon. Gentleman must deal with under the powers which he possessed.
  He would like, next, to draw attention to the Resolution which was unanimously adopted at the Executive Meeting of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, which represented 400,000 railway people who worked throughout the country. It was to the effect that the law should be altered so as to allow the Board of Trade Inspctoers to make inquiries and report the result without having the names of the men affected divulged. That was only fair, because of the immense pressure which could be brought to bear by employers upon employees. Attempts had been made in other countries to limit the hours of railway servants. In Switzerland, for instance, it had been done with comparative success, and by an Act of 1890, it was set forth that the hours should not exceed twelve, and that with certain exceptions the runningstaff should have an uninterrupted rest of ten hours. It was also provided that there should be fifty-two holidays in the year, seventeen of which were to be Sundays. He did not refer to either Belgium or Germany, because in both those countries the majority of the railways were under State management, but in France the Minister for Public Works had power to act and compel the railways in this matter. They had also rules limiting

  1089
  the number of hours on a certain number of days of the locomotive men. In 1897 there was an attempt made in the French Parliament still further to strengthen those Acts in the way of limiting the hours of railway servants. Everything went to show that the President of the Board of Trade had at present ample powers to deal with these questions, and it was manifestly his duty to use those powers to a greater extent than they had been used in the past.
  There was one other matter to which he should like to draw the attention of the House. There was a tendencyion the part of employers—and railway companies, large corporations as they were, were no exception — to exercise over their servants a certain power which they had no legal right to exercise, by which those employees were interfered with in the enjoyment of their rights as citizens. No doubt that would be denied by those who were interested in or controlled the great railway companies. He was not going to say that it was the rule, but that certain railway companies did exert such a power could not be denied. There was the comparatively recent case, in connection with the Great Eastern Railway, of the stationmaster at Swaffham being censured for signing a petition in favour of the School Board. Surely if there was one thing in connection with public life in regard to which every individual in the country ought to have a perfect right to exercise his discretion, it was that of the education of his child. Yet this man, because he favoured a Board School—perhaps on religious grounds—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not see how this bears on the Motion before the House.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I think it bears on the Motion in this way, Sir—
  "To call attention to the excessive hours worked by railway men, and other disabilities they suffer."
  I was about to deal with one of the other disabilities, viz., that of being deprived of the right to exercise the privileges of citizenship.
  * MR. SPEAKER: The words quoted by the hon. Member do not appear in the Notice of Motion. They simply state
  1090
  the matters to which the hon. Member originally desired to call attention, and he then proceeds to formulate his Motion. The discussion must be confined to the terms of the Motion which the hon. Member put down.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: In that case, Sir, I have concluded my remarks, my contention being that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has full power to exert influence over all railway companies throughout the country in the direction of not unduly working their employees, but that he has not exerted that power to its full extent.
  *(8.37.) MR. BELL (Derby): I rise to second the Motion moved by my hon. friend, and I do so in order that I may be able to present to this House sufficient facts in connection with the hours worked by railway men to form what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a Question put to him by me on the 21st January, referred to as a prima facie case to enable him to ask the railway companies for a Return of the hours of all their men. My hon. friend who opened the discussion has referred to that, and I will not follow him upon it; indeed, I do not propose to occupy the attention of the House on this subject any longer than necessary to set forth clearly and distinctly the very excessive hours that railway men are called on to endure in following the responsible avocation of engine-drivers, firemen, goods-guards, and brakesmen on the whole of our railways. I have in my possession particulars of a very large number of eases—more than I propose to burden the House with, but they are at the disposal of any hon. Members who may desire to see them. If hon. Members wish to have the particulars, of course I can give as many as they desire, but I have summarised, as far as it is possible for me to do so, the number of cases in each instance in which I have made a representation to the Board of Trade under the Hours Act of 1893, and I have classified them so as to set forth the number in each case appertaining to the different and particular railways. And I venture to suggest. Sir, that I shall prove conclusively to this House that the hours worked today on our railways are

  1091
  as bad as they were during the years 1890 and 1891, when Parliament considered the subject so grave and important that it ordered a Royal Commission to inquire into it. That Commission sat for two years inquiring into the hours worked by railway men. As a result of that inquiry, and the Act which followed in 1893 (which was based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission), the hours of the men were considerably reduced. Nearly the whole of the railway companies, if not the whole of them, put forth every effort to bring about a reduction in the hours, and to a large extent their endeavours were attended with success. For a number of years at any rate the hours of the men were reduced to a very reasonable point. And, Sir, what I term reasonable is a working day of twelve hours maximum. I am not one of those who hold that all railway men should at all times and continuously be called upon to work even twelve hours each day, but I do say that twelve hours as a maximum is sufficiently long for men engaged in such dangerous and responsible oocupations as those of the railway service, and upon the proper discharge of which the lives of the traveling public more or less depend. But in recent years that time has been considerably exceeded.
  I have here a summary of cases which, for the sake of convenience, I have made as short as possible. I will deal first with the North British Railway. I have submitted to the Board of Trade 22 representations—and I would here explain what I mean by a "representation." A representation is not a reference to a single instance of long hours, but it has to do with a depôt at which there may be 20, or 50, or 100 men at work, and I lodge a complaint with regard to the long hours of the whole of those 20, 50, or 100 men, and in that case I should consider the complaint one representation. Well, I have submitted to the Board of Trade, within the last three months—and I would ask the House to mark the period — 22 representations relating to the North British Railway. They relate to 17 different depôts, or centres—and I would here further explain that depôts are locomotive sheds, or headquarters of the train - men. In some instances
  1092
  they are far removed from any particular goods or passenger station. That is why I use the word depôts—to cover all locomotive sheds, and centres of the train-men. I have made these 22 representations on behalf of the men on the North British Railway, in regard to 17 depôts. I have complained that the hours worked, in one or more instances, varied from 14¾ to 22 per day, and that refers to each representation. In relation to the Caledonian Railway, I have submitted 5 representations concerning 5 depôts, and in each representation I have complained of one or more instances of the hours worked, varying from 14½ to 16¾. I will give the details in one instance. I have figures relating to many of them, but I will content myself with giving those relating to only one. During one week commencing November 18th, a driver and fireman made the following hours — 15 hrs. 30 mins., 12 hrs., 14 hrs., 12 hrs. 25 mins., 13 hrs. 10 mins., and 12 hrs. 35 mins., or a total of 79 hrs. 40 mins.
  Now I come to a more important railway than even the Caledonian — the Great Central. I have made 12 representations to the Board of Trade on behalf of the men employed on the Great Central at nine different depôts, my complaint being that in one or more instances the hours worked have varied from 16¼ to 30¾. I refer to continuous duty. I will give the number of hours worked in one instance. They were 18 hrs. 15 mins., 13 hrs. 40 mins., 10 hrs. 15 mins. 20 hrs., 14 hrs. 35 mins., and 16 hrs., or a total of 92 hrs. 45 mins. Another instance in connection with this railway has to do with a case illustrating the custom prevalent on our railways of booking men off for 1 day—allowing them to work 5 days of long hours and then booking them off for 1 day. There is a week's working for men in 5 shifts only—13 hrs. 35 mins, 13 hrs. 5 mins. 16 hrs. 50 mins., 10 hrs.. and 18 hrs. 50 mins., or 72 hrs. 20 min. for the 5 days. To put the thing fairly I have here the working of a main line express goods train on the same railway. I have a record of 28 days' consecutive running of that train, and I find that the hours worked by the men employed on it were as follow:—18 of them worked between 15 and 20 hrs.

  1093
  at a stretch. On 27 out of the 28 days the hours ranged from 13 to 20. I have the running of another express goods trains on the same railway for 28 days. On 10 of these days the record of hours worked was over 15, on 9 days 16 hrs., on l day 19 hrs., on 1 day 21 hrs.,and on 7 days from 12 to 15 hrs. I submit that these instances are sufficient to warrant the House, or any other body invested with power, insisting upon a change. I give the House another instance out of several on my sheet, and I will content myself with one:—On one day in December 13 goods guards worked 30 hrs. 45 mins., 22 hrs. 5 mins., 23 hrs. 5 mins., 20 hrs. 20 mins., 23 hours, 24 hrs. 30 mins., 21 hrs. 50 mins., 22 hrs. 30 mins., 20 hrs. 50 mins., 21 hrs. 30 mins., 20 hrs. 50 mins., 19 hrs. 50 mins., and 24 hours. Thus there were 13 cases of men working from over 19 to over 30 hours. In submitting these cases to the President of the Board of Trade I covered the list with these words—
  "On the 21st November 3 men worked excessive hours—one 17, another 14, and a third l6½ hours. On the 22nd 1 man was on 16 hours, and another 15 hrs. 20 mins. On the 23rd 5 men were worked respectively 17 hrs. 15 mins., 14 hrs. 25 mins., 10 hrs. 40 mins., 16¾ hrs., and 14 hrs. 50 mins. On the 25th the number increased to 7:—15 hours, 17 hrs. 50 mins., 17½ hours, 15 hrs. 10 mins. 21 hrs. 5 mins., 15½ hours, and 15¾ hours. On the 26th 2 men worked 17 hrs. 10 mins., and 15 hrs. 40 mins. respectively. On the 27th 5 men worked 14½ hours, 14 hrs. 25 mins.,16 hours, 14 hrs. 50 mins., and 20 hours. On the 28th 3 men worked 15¼ hours, 17½ hours, and 15 hrs. 40 mills. On the 29th there were 7 cases again:— 15 hrs. 5 mins., 15¼ hours, 15 hours, 21 hrs. 25 mins., 17 hours, 17½ hours, and 30 hrs. 40 mins."
  I stated to the Board of Trade as follows:
  "I would draw your attention to the last case mentioned. It may be urged by the Company that the long hours were in consequence of fog, but on some of the dates mentioned there was absolutely no fog, and vet there is no perceptible difference. I trust you will make strong representations to the Company, for these abnormally long hours are alike detrimental to the welfare of the men and the public safety."
  I now come to the case of the Midland Railway, to show that the condition of things of which I complain is not confined to one railway. I made 3 representations to the President of the Board of Trade of 15 instances concerning 15 different depôts. One or more instances in each case showed hours varying from 15 to 29. I would here call attention
  1094
  to the fact that these cases come from Sheffield—or a number of them, at any rate. I made a similar complaint to the President of the Board of Trade on November 1st, 1889. I then made a representation to the Board as to the long hours worked, and I gave a statement to the effect that during the previous week eighteen guards worked upwards of 100 hours. The reply I received from the Board of Trade on November 8th was to the effect that there was nothing in my letter to show that the representation was authorised by the men concerned, and asking whether the complaint was made at the request of the men. On November 10th I wrote again to the Board to the effect that the complaint was laid by the Secretary of the Sheffield Branch of the A.S.R.S., and that complaints from him were regarded as authentic by me. On November 30th, 1899, further representation was made to the Board that the previous week over fifty guards had worked upwards of 100 hours, and that one man had worked 126 hours. I venture to suggest that it is almost impossible to make this House and the country believe that men are constantly employed on our railways such an enormous number of hours as is here shown. Let me here express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will not suppose for a moment that I desire to make an attack on him. I want to strengthen his hands, if possible, so as to break down this systematic overwork. But I have received no reply from the right hon. Gentleman, up to the present moment, to the complaints I lodged with him on November 1st, 1899. On the 19th of this month I submitted to the right hon. Gentleman no less than forty-one examples of long hours ranging from 84 to 116½ per week. These facts are almost incredible. The House will experience great difficulty in giving credence to them; but I can assure the House that I am only too familiar with the extraordinary circumstances I am relating.
  I will give one or two other examples of hours worked. I will give one week's working of one man—I have other instances, but it is useless to give them all, especially as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has a record of them at his office. On the

  1095
  first day the goods guard in question worked 16 hrs. 20 mins., on the second 16 hrs. 10 mins., on the fourth 15 hrs. 15 mins., on the fifth 25 hours, on the sixth 16 hours, and on the seventh 17 hrs. 5 mins., or a total of 105 hours 50 mins. for the week of six days. Here is a case of a man working seven shifts in six working days:—He happened to start work in the early hours of Monday morning, that is to say immediately after midnight on Sunday, and he finished about noon on the following Sunday, his hours being on the seven successive shifts, 15 hrs. 10 mins., 11 hrs., 14 hrs. 10 mins., 22 hrs. 55 mins., 15 hours, 13 hrs. 30 mins., 24 hrs. 50 mins. or a total of 116 hrs. 35 mins. Here is another case of 98 hours and 30 mins. worked by one man in five working days. First day 13 hrs. 50 mins., second day 25 hrs. 35 mins., third day off duty, fourth day 16 hrs. 50 mins., fifth day 22 hrs. 30 mins., sixth day off duty, and seventh day 21 hrs. 45 mins. I will not trouble the House with any more cases of the description. But here is a case from Nottingham on the Midland Railway—one of several which I have supplied to the right hon. Gentleman. On the first day the goods guard worked 21 hours, on the second he was off duty, on the third he worked 11 hrs. 15 mins., on the fourth he was off duty, on the fifth he worked 29 hrs. 50 mins., on the sixth 17 hours, and on the seventh 16 hrs. 45 mins., or an aggregate of 95 hrs. 50 mins.
  Now I go to another table, so that the House may not think that these things only occur in isolated instances. Here are a number of goods guards who have worked upwards of 14 hours a day at one station. For the week ending December 5th, 1901, 75; December 12th, 53; December 19th, 63; December 26th, 54; January 2nd, 1902, 13; January 9th, 22; January 16th, 31; January 23rd, 24; and January 30th, 13. These are the number of guards, who, for each week in succession, worked more than 14 hours per day. I claim that these cases are strong enough to warrant the taking of any measure necessary to put down such abuses. I take the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. In connection with that railway within the past three months I have made ten representations concerning eight depôts, and one or more instances
  1096
  of hours varying from 14¼ to 24½ per shift were included in each representation. Then as to the Great Western, I have made eight representations concerning six depôts, one or more instances of hours varying from 15 hours to 19 hrs. 40 mins. per shift being included in each representation. In the case of the Brecon and Merthyr Railway, I have made four representations. It is only a small railway. I do not believe they have more than four depôts, and I have made representations concerning three. I have complained of hours ranging from 16¼ to 19¼. In reference to the Taff Yale Railway, I have made two representations concerning two depôts, the hours in that case ranging from 15¾ to 16¼. And as to the Great Eastern Railway, I have made two representations concerning two depôts, the hours complained of ranging from 14 to 16. In the case of the Great Northern Railway, I have made three representations concerning three depôts, one or more instances of hours varying from 16 to 17¾ being included in each representation. In the case of the Midland and South-Western Junction Railway, I have made two representations concerning one depôt, and one or more instances of hours varying from 21 to 22 were included in each representation.
  Now, as an instance of what is done on some railways, I will mention a case which concerns this very railway, viz., the Midland and South-Western Junction. Those who took any interest in the Commission of 1891–92 will remember that the death of a guard was practically traced to the long hours worked. The Commission itself stated that that was the case. The man, it seems, had been on duty 29 hours, if I remember rightly. That was traced—29 hours on duty when he met with his unfortunate fatality. I do not know what hon. Members will think of this if they picture to themselves travelling behind an engine-driver and fireman who had been on duty for these enormous hours. I venture to say that many an hon. Member of this House would not feel very comfortable on a railway journey if they knew that such a condition of things as that existed. This is the case I refer to which occurred on the Midland and South-Western Junction Railway. The driver, it seems, with the

  1097
  fireman, signed on at 9 a.m. on February 17th. They worked a goods train from Cheltenham to Andover Junction, and a goods train back to Cheltenham on the 18th. After being on for 27 hrs. and 10 mins. continuous duty, the driver and fireman were changed to a passenger train which they worked forward to Cheltenham where they performed some shunting. They signed off duty at four o'clock p.m. on February 18th. Thus when they had finished their shift of duty they had been on thirty-one hours, working a passenger train during the last few hours.
  I have given a few instances of long hours on Scottish railways and English railways, but the Irish railways do not form an exception to the general custom. I find that during the past three months I have made two representations to the President of the Board of Trade concerning one depôt, in which I have given one or more instances of hours varying from 16¾ to 18¼. I wrote to the Board of Trade—
  "I am requested to draw your attention to the very long hours of duty which the men stationed at Cavan are called upon to work."
  As cases in point I give you particulars of the hours worked on the 10th and 11th of January. January 10th:—Driver and fireman, 14 hrs. 55 mins.; Signalman, 17 hrs. 15 mins.; Shunter, 17 hrs. 15 mins; Store Porter, 16 hrs. 15 mins.; and these men after having been on 14, 17, 17, and 16 hours on the 10th, did duty on the day following, thus:—Fireman, 15 hrs. 10 mins.; Signalman, 21 hrs.; Shunter, 19 hrs. 40 mins.; Assistant Shunter, 19 hrs. 40 mins.; Goods Checker, 19 hrs. 40 mins. I trust the House will accept and note some of the examples. These are not all I have. The balance I have sent on to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, for his own verification.
  Let me give another example of the manner in which the men are overworked — it forms another kind of complaint as to the men being compelled to resume duty after heavy work, with only very short intervals for rest. Indeed, you cannot call the intervals rest at all in many instances. I will give an example. A driver goes on duty at two o'clock in the afternoon (I have the instance here), and he finishes
  1098
  at twelve o'clock midnight. That is what one would call a fair ordinary day's work of ten hours. Of that we do not complain. But what we do complain of is that he should have to be out again at 6.5 a.m., and work until 9.45 p.m., and that he should have to start afresh on the third day at four o'clock a.m., and work until five o'clock p.m. From start to finish this was 51 hours, but the man had only two short intervals of 6 hrs. 5 mins., and 6¼ hrs. for rest, the actual hours worked out of the 51 totalling up to 38 hrs. 40 mins. And we call the intervals intervals for rest, but. anybody who knows anything of the working—and there are many here who are interested in railways who do know perfectly well that a man does not rest during the whole of the time he is off. It takes a driver an hour to prepare his engine before he goes out with his train, and when he has finished his house may be a mile away from the company's premises, and he may have to spend some time in walking there. And here we find a man going on again with only 6 hrs. 5 mins. interval from 6 o'clock a.m. to 9.45 p.m., or 15 hrs. and 40 mins. continuous duty, and the same man we find going on at 4 o'clock a.m. for another 13 hours continuous duty, coming off at 5 o'clock p.m.
  I do not make complaint of the treatment meted out to the men on all occasions. I am not, and I hope I never shall be so narrow-minded, and so regardless of the rights of others, as to claim amelioration for the men without taking the circumstances of the railway proprietors into consideration. I have always endeavoured to be fair. I have regarded with an eye to justice and equity every case which has been brought under my consideration. I examined every application. I admit—I agree—that railway directors, railway officials, and railway shareholders deserve consideration. Were this a question of wages between the employers and the employees, there might, perhaps, be room for compromise, but there is no room for compromise in matters so serious as these. Not only are the railwaymen concerned, but the general public also are concerned. Hon. Members may say "What have the conditions of labour of the drivers

  1099
  and firemen of goods trains and goods guards to do with the general public? The public do not travel on goods trains!" That is true, but are there not a multiplicity of junctions, and sidings, and stations on our railways? And if these are congested with traffic, if the drivers, and firemen, and guards are physically exhausted, if they are asleep when they pass a signal, is it not very possible that someone may have serious reason to say that goods trains after all have something to do with passenger trains? There is a custom to book men to work a week's hours in five days. It is the general custom for the drivers and firemen of goods and mineral trains to be booked on duty for five days only in each week. The men get one day's rest; but the object of giving the day is not that they may rest, but to prevent them making overtime. The men are paid on a certain scale, and they do not get consideration for working straight off the reel, so long as they do not work more than 60 hours a week. The result of the system is that there are few complaints of long hours, for if the men do not work long hours they do not get a week's pay.
  The Select Committee of 1891–92 referred to the system of booking men to work a week's hours in five days, and what they said is worth repeating here, as it has a bearing on the matter we are considering. They said—
  "Your Committee think that, in the interest of safety, this practice should as far as possible be diminished, so that each day should stand by itself, and that the arrangements of the Company should be so framed as to prevent the booked time of drivers, firemen and guards from exceeding 66 hours per week or 12 hours in any one day."
  I venture to think that hon. Members will agree with that Report of the Committee, and now I am going to quote a very impartial and fair-minded man—a man whom all parties are agreed is fair-minded, the late Chief Inspector of the Board of Trade, Major Marindin. He reported on an accident which occurred in Castlecarry in 1894, and said—
  "In this case the member at fault had not been at work for any great length of time, but it appears from the evidence that the normal hours of work of all the men—signalmen, drivers, and guards—are about twelve hours, which is too long a period for any men to work continuously, and should be tolerated
  1100
  only where the work is of a very light and intermittent character, with considerable intervals for rest."
  Lieutenant Colonel Yorke, the present officer of the Board of Trade, reporting in January 1899, on the collision which occurred at Three Counties Station on the Great Northern Railway, says—
  "This man (the driver) had been on duty exactly twelve hours, and perhaps this fact renders it possible to take a lenient view of his fault, for it can hardly be expected that a man who has been at work for so many hours, especially during the night and early morning, can maintain that degree of vigilance and caution which is essential for safety. And the Company should, I submit, be reminded that the Board of Trade regard 10 hours or there-abouts as the limit beyond which the hours of duty of a driver and fireman, should not extend except in cases of emergency."
  Now I come to a more recent Report, one of the 14th of this month, in which Major J. W. Pringle, R.E., dealt with the accident which occurred at Chelsea Station. This inspector in the course of his Report said—
  "It is difficult to see what excuse can be made for such culpable forgetfulness, unless it be found in the fact that Mausell had been on duty some 13 hours at the time of the occurrence and had more onerous work to do than he could efficiently perform."
  I may say in connection with this case that one hour of the man's work really belonged to his mate. By some mutual arrangement between the man who caused the accident and his mate in the next shift—the day shift—one did 13 hours duty and the other 11 hours. It is evident that the man having been 13 hours on duty was rendered unfit.
  The subject is of great importance, and the risks so great, that I would even refuse to allow men, however much they might desire it, to work these excessive hours on our railways. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when I put my Question to him, certainly seemed to think that a greater number of cases ought to have been submitted to him than have been submitted, in order to make out a prima facie case for his interference. Now we have evidence, and I hope to prove to the House that it is impossible to get the men to make complaints, for the simple reason that they are interfered with if they do. I venture to think that there will be Gentlemen

  1101
  here who are connected with the railways, who will get up and say that there is no interference with the men who make complaints. But I have worked too long on the railways not to know that the men are intimidated. It may very well be that no one in the House who is a director knows of this. These cases never come before the directors. And why? I will explain. The Board of Trade, working on a complaint of long hours of engine-drivers and firemen and guards, from Nottingham for example, will ask for a return. They will communicate with the Company, who will communicate with the smaller officials at the depâts asking them to suppply the information wanted. Some officious foreman who has to get the information at first hand goes bouncing up and down the yard saying:—"Some one has been complaining about the hours here. I wish I could find out who it is. I would take care that he did not have the chance of complaining again." That is the kind of intimidation that is practised. It often occurs; I will give instances of the intimidation of men for daring to complain that the hours they worked were excessive. I have two instances relating to the North British Railway. Two drivers had been on duty for 11 hrs. and 30 mins., and 11 hrs. and 40 mins. respectively, when they were requested to work another train. They refused, and took their engines to the shed. When they signed off they had been on duty for 12 hrs. and 50 mins. and 12 hrs. and 40 mins. respectively. For refusing to perform the additional work after being on so long, both men were suspended for one day. There is the intimidation. That is a sample of what happens to men for refusing to work long hours. Here is another case on the Caledonian. An engine driver had lodged a complaint with his superior officer as to the hours he had to work, and he had said that something should be done to reduce them. The driver was sent for by the Locomotive Superintendent, severely censured, and threatened with instant dismissal if he made such a complaint again. He was told that the Company required the interference of no third party in these matters. My
  1102
  correspondent who sends me the details of the case says—
  "The hours are something terrible—as high as 99 in one week—and the men have to turn out on duty with only about 6 and 7 hours rest…. They are afraid to make complaints, lest they should be dismissed their employment."
  I venture to say that half the railway men in the country are in a similar position to this; they dare not make complaints. They are intimidated by the smaller officials, indirectly it may be. I have here the case of another driver on the Great Western Railway. He was dismissed by the Company for getting out particulars of long hours worked from the pay sheet. He appealed to the Board of Directors, and appeared before them, but his dismissal was confirmed. The Board of Trade in their Report issued in August last year, seemed to compliment the Railway Companies pretty freely for coming forward voluntarily and reducing excessive hours their men formerly worked. But the men know that their hours are as long now as ever they were during 1890, and 1891, and 1892. So indignant did the men feel at the compliment paid to the Company, which they knew to be founded on an inaccurate view of the situation, that they literally bombarded me with complaints. They will use any means in their power to get information so that the real facts may be known. The House will appreciate the difficulty in the way of any one single person arriving at the facts—of getting the hours worked by all the men employed on the railways. Many of them do not keep a record of the time they work. And the Railway Company have got to know that some of the men are a bit ingenious, and they therefore remove the time books out of the way, so that a man who may be inclined to copy a little bit as to the time worked by others shall not have the opportunity to do so. On the Great Western Railway, as I have said, a servant copied from the pay sheets the hours of work, in order to refute the statement in the Return of the Board of Trade that the hours of the men on the railway were reasonable; and this, of course, being a breach of discipline, he was dismissed. He appealed to the directors, but they, like all directors, upheld the action of the superintendent

  1103
  and officials. To-day I received a letter from a woman, who says—
  "I understand you are taking up cases of long hours, so I send you my husband's for the past fortnight. He went on duty at 10 minutes past 2 on Tuesday morning, February 11th, finished Saturday night, February 15th, with 71 hours some minutes for five shifts. He went on duty on Sunday, February 16th, and in seven shifts up to the following Sunday morning worked 99 hrs. 35 mins., or 170 hours for twelve shifts—50 hours more than is supposed to be worked in that time. Two other guards went home this morning with 91 hours and 98 hours. Just before Christmas a guard, neighbour to us, made over 100 hours in seven shifts, beginning one Sunday a.m. and finishing the next Sunday at dinner-time…. The companies work men like this, then when they give up dead beat and go on the club to recover, want to know if they mind being medically examined, to see if they are fit for the position of goods guard, or they must have a lighter job, with, of course, less wages."
  Now, Sir, I venture to think that there are few people either in this House or out of it who adequately appreciate the difficulty of the position occupied by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He seems to be—to use a phrase frequently employed as illustrating the awkwardness of a situation—"between the devil and the deep sea." He has on one side of him the railway directors, who form a large body in this House, and many of whom are members of the Government, and on the other side he has my humble self—only one individual, but representing the whole body of the railway workers throughout the United Kingdom. I feel, Sir, that my influence has not the magnitude of that on the other side; still I am undismayed, and whilst I say that, I assert without contradiction that I have never—and I hope I never shall—presented anything to this House which will not bear the fullest investigation. Therefore, I am looking forward to a full measure of support. I feel confident that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable influence brought to bear upon him in the responsible position he holds—that he is put under pressure many a time not to be too free with his hand in dealing with the complaints of railway men.
  I have read with much interest—and I will give the House the benefit of it—an extract from a report of a speech delivered by the right hon. Member for North Leeds, the Chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company. Speaking at the
  1104
  half-yearly meeting of the Great Northern shareholders on August 9th, 1901, in reference to the Prevention of Accidents Act, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "At this particular time the Board of Trade is engaged in the task of what I may call forging fresh fetters for railway companies, following the Act which was passed called the Prevention of Accidents Act, and involving large expenditure…. and I do not hesitate to say that in my humble opinion it is the duty of the Government, in the interests of the traders of the country at such a time of pressure as this, to deal as tenderly as the situation will afford. (Applause.) I need not say this view is impressed upon the Board of Trade, and I hope wherever you have the opportunity to present this view to public attention that you will not neglect to do so."
  In this, Sir, I maintain we have an admission, on the part of the Chairman of one of the great railways, that pressure is put upon the Board of Trade. I, in turn, would put pressure on this House. My point is that whatever may be the position of railway shares and dividends, these excessive hours worked by railway servants should cease. Life and limb to me are much more precious that all the dividends of all the railways in the country.
  Now, I do maintain, and I hope to prove, that to some extent, indirectly, these very excessive hours conduce to railway accidents. I find in the Report of the Select Committee of 1891–92, these words—
  "It may certainly be assumed that, where the hours of a signalman, driver, or guard have been extended to the length repeatedly proved in the evidence which has been laid before your Committee, there must almost necessarily be physical exhaustion, which would be incompatible with the proper performance of his responsible duties, and, consequently, involve very serious risks."
  Sir, the remarks of the Committee of 1891–92 are my remarks to-day. I do not know that it would be a bad thing for Members of this House to try what it is like to sit for six consecutive days sixteen hours in this House, never being able to get out of it. I make bold to say that after a week of it, although they would have no signals to look after, or time to keep, or trains to watch for (as railway men have, though they may be falling asleep), they might fall asleep, yet no danger would arise—the nation would be safe — but I doubt whether they would care to try the ordeal again.

  1105
  Let hon. Members, then, imagine the position of these men employed on our railways, on engines, and in brake vans and shunting yards, following up these dangerous avocations under such excessive hours. I maintain that these long hours have a bearing indirectly on accidents, and I have proof of the fact. I have here the figures, as supplied by the Board of Trade for ten years ending 1900, as to the railway servants killed or so injured as to cause the loss of limbs — hands, feet, fingers, or toes — in accidents to trains or by the movements of railway vehicles. Only cases in which amputation has taken place are given in the list of injuries. I will not weary the House by giving the figures for each year, but in 1891 they were 549 killed, 72 losses of legs, arms, hands, or feet, and 32 losses of fingers or toes. The Report of the Commission in 1892, from the evidence of such gentlemen as the late Mr. Lambert, the General Manager of the Great Western Railway, and Mr. Aspinall, the present General Manager of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, had a great effect. I have no hesitation in saying that it was through that Report that the number of accidents to railway men showed a material diminution. As the hours of employment were reduced in consequence of the Report, so did the number of accidents decrease. In 1892 the number of fatal accidents went down from 549 to 534, and the loss of legs, arms, hands, or feet was 75, and the loss of fingers or toes 23. In 1893 the Hours Act passed, and the recommendations of the Commission were brought into force. One of the results of that Act was that a much larger number of men were engaged on the railways—50,000 more. Yet, in spite of there being so many more men engaged in the work of the railways, so good was the effect of the new Act that in 1895 the number of fatal accidents went down to 460, the cases of loss of legs, arms, hands, or feet fell to 67, and the cases of loss of fingers or toes to 19. I am bound to say that the Board of Trade contributed to the good effect produced on the railways. There is no doubt they did put forward their best energy and effort, and that only in very few cases indeed, and under very special circumstances, were there any men allowed to work more than 12 hours. And this im-
  1106
  provement continued right down to 1896. The accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, went down. In 1894 the fatal accidents were 479, the loss of legs, arms, hands or feet 70, and the loss of fingers or toes, 28. In 1895 the figures were:—Fatal, 412, and non-fatal, 57 and 30; and in 1896 the cases were — fatal, 447, and non-fatal, 49 and 30. But since 1896 the figures had grown again.
  The right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade is not responsible, for he did not then occupy his present position. But the accidents have grown and grown until they are as numerous as they were in 1891–92, and they have grown just as the hours of working have grown and grown. In 1897 the fatal accidents, which in 1891 were 549, had grown to 510, in 1898 they were 504, in 1899 531, and in 1900 583, while the number of non-fatal accidents, involving the loss of legs, arms, hands, or feet, were respectively 62, 91, 85, and 95, and the accidents involving loss of fingers or toes were 24, 40, 29, and 30. The total number of fatal accidents in the ten years were 5,039, and of non-fatal 1,068. Lumping the two categories together, I maintain that these figures disclose a state of things too serious for this House or any one else to wink at. The House is bound to, at any rate, do something by which permanent influence will be brought to bear on the railway companies to put an end to the excessive hours of labour.
  Here is something from the Report of the Commission which sat in 1892 in reference to the failure of some railway companies to keep the hours of working' down. Major Marindin, in his evidence, said—
  "What I have said before is, that I do not think that up to the present time, or nearly so, the railway companies have been in earnest in the matter of trying to seduce the working hours."
  I repeat what he said in 1892 here in this House at the present moment— "Railway companies are not in earnest in this matter. It is not their particular desire to reduce the hours." Major Marindin said—
  "I think the first people to consider it should be the directors of a company; they ought to consider the willingness of the men and to reduce the hours, but, as I have said before, the hours of railway servants have to

  1107
  be reduced within reasonable limits, and if the railway companies will not do it I think somebody else must do it for them."
  Major Marindin speaks there about the willingness of the men to do the work, Sir, he was speaking about the finest body of men in the United Kingdom. No body of men in the United Kingdom take greater interest in the welfare of their employers than the railway men, and for that reason I ask the House for greater fair play than they are receiving at the present time. Before the Select Committee in 1892, Mr. Channing asked Major Marindin—
  "Is not that largely true of the railway men that you have been brought into contact with, all over the country, that they are not a complaining lot of men, but are a manly, loyal set of men to their employers?"
  Major Marindin's reply was—
  "I have said in public, and I repeat it, that I do not think there is a body of men in the world who are a finer set of fellows from top to bottom and all round than railway servants."
  Then Mr. Channing asked—
  "They do their turns of duty cheerfully and uncomplainingly?"
  to which the answer was—
  "Yes, I believe so."
  Now, what I wish to say is—and this is my last remark—that the companies must submit Returns to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said in his reply to me the other night that this would impose a tremendous amount of labour on the railway companies. But I maintain that even if it does, that should not be taken into consideration. I will say this: It is very little good I have at any time to say of the London and North Western Railway Company, in particular in regard to their treatment of their employees; but I am bound to confess that this Company, since the Act of 1893 has been in operation, do not permit their officials to over-work the men. It is not the men who work, but the officials who permit them to work more than twelve hours, who are dealt with. On the London and North Western Railway, when there is fog or snow or anything else, every man must be relieved in about twelve hours. And if the London and North Western Railway can do that, every other Railway Company
  1108
  can do it if they make up their minds to.
  The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made the objection the other day that I had not made out a primâ facie case. I hope I have done so tonight. What will be the result of requiring these Returns? Why, if the Railway Companies are not sinners in the matter of over-working their men—that is to say, if they are like the London and North Western Railway Company—it will be an easy thing, and one involving no labour for them, to send in blank Returns and say, in reply to the question as to how many men have worked over hours, "Nil." If the Companies do not work their men over twelve hours—do not overwork them—they will have no Returns to make, but if they do continue to work them these excessive hours (and I have demonstrated, I hope, to the satisfaction of the House, that they do systematically all over the country), they should be compelled to send in Returns. What I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is this, that the companies should be called on every six months — somebody suggested every three months, but I don't want to be too hard on them—to furnish Returns of the hours worked above twelve or whatever other standard may be fixed. Where the Board of Trade find that the hours are systematically above twelve, they should take powers under the Act of 1893. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in a reply tonight to the mover of the Motion, to say that he had power to call for Returns, but there should be a definite standard laid down. The companies should be required to send in every six months a Return of all hours worked beyond twelve hours per day, and of cases in which men have had to resume duty with less than nine hours rest. With this order imposed, I venture to say that in two years time there will be little or no complaint to make, because where the hours were excessive, or the intervals for rest too short, it would be only in cases of emergency, in regard to which I should be the last man to make a complaint. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clearly to laying down a Standing

  1109
  Order that these Returns shall be sent in every six months. That in itself would automatically affect the hours and reduce them to what is fair and more reasonable.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in the opinion of this House, the Government should exercise their power to call for Returns of the hours exceeding twelve per day worked by railway servants, and of cases where work is resumed with intervals of less than nine hours."—(Captain Norton.)
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The object of this Resolution, notwithstanding some ambiguity in its terms, is perfectly clear. It is to secure that in cases where hours beyond the limit plainly stated in the Resolution have been worked, publicity should be given to the fact, although no penal consequences are attached; that is to say, that where hours exceeding twelve per day have been worked, or where the interval of rest between periods of work has been less than nine hours, the cases should be carefully tabulated by the railway companies, and the Government should have power to call for a Return of them, so that, those instances being made available, as they would be, for publication, it would be possible for public opinion to be in formed as to whether or not proper precautions were taken on the various railways for the safety of the public. I do not think any hon. Member would suggest that proper provision is made for the safety of the travelling public when trains, either goods or passenger, are worked by men who have already been through long periods of duty. It may be suggested,,and I believe it is the fact, that these long hours are worked for the most part by the guards of goods trains, that these goods trains are shunted from time to time, and that they do not directly affect the safety of passengers. But how many accidents—of which many are fatal—are there which arise from collisions between goods and passenger trains, simply because of a want of care, or, possibly, a want of alertness, on the part of railway servants; and how far are those railway servants excusable by reason of over-work? There is a class of servants not mentioned in the speech of the hon. Member for
  1110
  Derby whose working hours might fairly be returned under this Resolution. I refer to railway clerks. They possibly are not so directly connected with the question of public safety as are the guards, but there are many cases in which railway clerks work seventy-five or eighty hours per week, irrespective of Sunday duty, excursion traffic, and public and bank holidays. That is a matter of humanitarianism, a matter connected with the provision of reasonable opportunities for education for these men, which would come within the purview of this Resolution, although I frankly admit that its chief object and incidence, if carried by this House, will be as regards those railway servants upon whose alertness depends the safety of the public.
  I will quote to the House for what they are worth some figures as to the hours worked by some of the railway men in my own constituency. The particulars I am about to give are not spasmodic or exceptional; they represent the hours systematically worked in Bradford and the surrounding districts. I may say also that I am making this statement on behalf of my hon. friend and colleague as well as myself, the knowledge of the facts being with us equally. I should not, for obvious reasons, mention the company to which these figures refer. There are three companies working in the district, but it is not desirable that any attack should be made on a particular company, or that anything should be said that might identify the men who had supplied the figures. One man worked 80 hours 55 minutes in six days; another worked 74 hours 5 minutes in six days; another, 73 hours 25 minutes in six days; another, 82 hours 35 minutes in six days; another, 70 hours 40 minutes in five days; the average hours of eight men being 14 hours 5 minutes per day. These figures are poor; they are not eloquent or significant, as were some of the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Derby; but they have this about them, which brings them out as compared with those of the hon. Member—they are figures which I am assured represent the systematic and customary average with many of the men in the district to which I refer. Is it reasonable to expect that men who have worked more than 14

  1111
  hours out of the 21, should be as alert as they would be if worked for a shorter period? Having had experience of what work is, I assert that no man at the end of such a period is as alert or as fit for duty as he ought to be, or as he would be if worked for a more reasonable number of hours.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Member kindly state the employment of the men to whom he has referred?
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The whole of the men to whom I have referred are goods guards. I heartily support this Motion. There are no direct penalties attaching to it, except perhaps some expense to the railway companies—an expense which, as the hon. Member for Derby has shown, is not shrunk from by the London & North Western Railway. But I believe the Motion, if it be carried, will have the effect of organising this information which the Board of Trade ought to have, and that railway companies—if there be any—who desire to work their men longer than they ought to be worked, will shrink from such a Return and from the publicity which it involves.
  MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)said that the arguments which had been placed before the House had been taken from an English point of view, and he would like to state what was thought in Ireland with reference to the number of hours which railway servants were compelled to work on Irish railways. He contended that the regulations in Ireland were not adequate to meet the requirements of the workers, and while they had in this country practically a rational day's work for railway servants, in Ireland the hours of labour varied from 15 to 20 hours out of the 24. That was not reasonable, not only for the men, but as regarded the public safety. So far as the regulations to protect these men in Ireland were concerned, they had been more honoured in the breach than the observance. He had in his possession a Return of the men who had met with accidents on Irish railways, and it transpired at an inquest in one case that the man had been working 16 out of the 21 hours.
  1112
  This man, after working 16 or 17 hours, was called upon when his energies had been exhausted to do other work, and he met his death. He contended that it was the duty of the Legislature to make such accidents as that impossible. That man might have been called upon to go and do other work which would have endangered the safety of the public. In Ireland the travelling public were at the mercy of the railway-companies in this respect, so far as supervision was concerned. These men in Ireland were compelled to work extraordinarily long hours, and on behalf of the men and also on behalf of the travelling public, he asked was it fair or right that they should sit quietly by, and allow the lives and the safety of the travelling public to be endangered by men who were obliged to work such long hours? The point he wished to impress, upon the House was that they should insist upon the railway companies recognising that there was a duty which they owed to the public as well as to their servants. A case recently occurred in Ireland of an employee who had paid into the funds of a certain railway company, and this entitled him to certain advantages at death. When he died the representatives of the men's organization insisted that justice should be done, and they claimed that the relatives of the deceased were entitled to what was due to the man from the company. The railway company disputed these demands, and a fellow employee of the deceased stood out for justice to the widow and orphans of this poor man. What was the result? That man lost his situation.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not see how that question bears upon excessive hours.
  *MR. NANNETTIsaid it was part of the system in existence in Ireland, and he thought he might have been allowed to refer to it. He would, however, confine himself to the other part of the subject. The excessive hours worked by railway servants in Ireland ought to appeal very strongly to hon. Members of the House, for in many cases these long hours were responsible for the loss of life. There was one case in which a man fell off the engine after having been on duty sixteen hours on the two days

  1113
  preceding the accident, and the report of the Inspector who investigated this case stated that this man could not have been so alert and fit for duty as he would have been had he not been working such excessive hours.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping): Was this man an engine driver?
  *MR. NANNETTIsaid the man he alluded to was a fireman. That man was engaged as a fireman, and compelled to work sixteen hours. If the hon. Member who interrupted was on a train which met with an accident on account of the long hours worked by the men, would he feel that the company was acting properly towards the travelling public? While it was the intention of the Legislature that the men should only work proper hours, it was a law "more honoured in the breach than the observance." It was especially the case so far as Ireland was concerned that men worked the long hours complained of. The companies there took advantage of the men, with the result that, while the men suffered themselves, the travelling public had to run the risk of injury as well. It was not a state of affairs that should exist, and it arose from the railway companies exacting too much from the men. The hon. Member for Derby had not unreasonably asked that the requirements laid down by the Board of Trade in this matter should be carried out. He was satisfied that they were not carried out so far, at least, as Ireland was concerned. What was wanted in Ireland was that the men should not be compelled to make reports of the cases themselves, but that proper inspectors should be appointed, who would see that the requirements of the Board of Trade were carried out, and that the travelling public was safe-guarded in the working of the traffic. Under the present system the grievances of the men could not be properly looked into, and in support of this contention he instanced the case of a respectable man in Ireland who attempted to protect his interests as a member of his trade society, and was not only dismissed from his employment in that country, but had been followed to England, with the result that he had been for several months practically a pauper.
  1114
  In consequence of his having shown where a dereliction of duty was taking place on the part of the railway company, he became a marked man. The hon. Member for Derby had done his duty in bringing the facts before the House and he deserved the thanks not only of railway servants but also of the travelling public. Railway companies that harassed their employees should be made to fall into line with those companies who acted in a proper and generous spirit towards their men and were sensible of their responsibilities to the travelling public.
  COL. LOCKWOOD: it is impossible to make any complaint of the way in which the hon. Member for Derby has brought the subject before the House this evening. He is to me always a most picturesque figure, if I may say so, in the House, because he represents a large and important body of men in this country—men to whom the public owe generally their safety in the journeys they make, and to whom the railway companies—I speak of railway companies generally — owe a great deal for the loyal service they render to us. With the broad principles brought before the House it is impossible to find any fault, nor do I think there is any man who is not prepared at once to accept the fact that long hours and overwork are not only bad for the individual but dangerous to the public, and injurious to the railway companies themselves. I was fortunate enough to hear most of the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, but he must recognise the fact that it is impossible for any of us to controvert the particular statements he brought before the House this evening. I am perfectly ready to accept them in all good faith, for I am sure that he never makes statements without inquiring into them and satisfying himself as far as he can that they are correct. But he must see that it is impossible for any one to contradict these statements or to go into the variety of cases which he has brought before the House. He entered into the very difficult and thorny question of how railway men were to make complaints. My experience in the Army is much greater than that of the railway, and I know that there were cases in the old days in regiments where complaints were made by men to non-com

  1115
  missioned officers and where the complaints were not always dealt with as the superior officers would wish. It is one of those facts which, as anybody will admit who knows what it is to have a great body of men under inferior officers, must always occur. It occurs in the Army, and I should be the last to say that it does not occur in the railway service. I can assure the hon. Member for Derby that all the directors of railway companies, as far as I know, are anxious to discourage to the utmost any attempt at intimidation on the part of the officers of the company. The directors, I believe, are honestly anxious that all complaints made by the men should arrive before them in the form in which they are made, that no intimidation should be practised to keep the men from making complaints, and that their case should be fairly laid before the directors and the superior officers. But the hon. Member for Derby no doubt knows better than I do that at the present time the men who have to work excessive hours have the power to ask for an inquiry by the Board of Trade. That power exists and has often been exercised, but if he and the general body of railway servants think that any comfort and satisfaction can be got out of such a Parliamentary Return as is asked for, I should be the last man to resist it. It would give considerable trouble, no doubt, and I have serious doubts myself whether it would effect the purpose the hon. Member for Derby has in view. But if he thinks it would afford satisfaction to the public, and if he thinks the House of Commons would get any good from a six months Return of the hours worked over twelve per day by railway servants I should not attempt to resist it.
  MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea): We have listened, not for the first time, to a characteristically temperate and genial speech by the hon. Member for the Epping Division, and if every railway director in and out of the House of Commons was in the habit of talking to Labour representatives and Labour Members of Parliament with that courtesy and fairness which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just displayed, I venture to think that some of the disputes that too frequently occur between capital and
  1116
  labour might be adjusted with greater advantage to both sides. The hon. and gallant Gentleman very freely admitted the representative capacity, the fairness, and the general accuracy of the statement put forward by the hon. Member for Derby; and he said with some degree of truth that it was very difficult to follow in detail some of the statements which the hon. Member for Derby had made. But it was impossible for the hon. Member for Derby, however fair and accurate he wished to be, to submit in advance a statement to different railway directors of the hours of working of their employees, and ask that they should be checked off. But what did he do? He practically exonerated the London and North Western Railway Company and said that that company was the only one against which his charges could not be laid. I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Epping that if the hon. Member for Derby can discriminate in this way and show that he has been impartial in his criticisms, and has not attacked the London and North Western Railway Company, it is obvious that the statement he made against the other railways is equally worthy of acceptance across the floor of the House. I venture to say that if the hon. and gallant Member for Epping would prevail on hon. Members on both sides of the House who are directors of railways to adopt the London and North Western system of hours, he would get over the chief objection which the men had to the rules and practices of these other companies. I believe that prevention is better than cure. I believe that we have had too many Commissions, Blue-books, and Reports, but so long as they are justified by the facts of the case we shall have to have them. I should like to see the railway companies so set their house in order in regard to the twelve hours' day that there should be no need for endless investigations or of a penny being spent on them. If ever there was an illustration of the advantage of having labour representatives in this House, I think we have had a signal example of its efficacy this evening. We have had, on an industrial question which affects, roughly speaking, 600,000 workmen, a practical man, with an intimate knowledge of the situation, with official facts at his command, and,

  1117
  above all, with the loyalty and authority of his constituents supporting him, making one of the most remarkable presentments of a case that I ever heard since I entered the House of Commons. He has given us cold facts, unquestionable figures, chapter and verse in regard to special railways, and, above all, the names of the men at the back of the figures. The hon. Member has given us the short and simple annals of the poor railway men in a manner I never heard presented before; and I venture to say that if railway directors were to listen to the hon. Member for Derby they have got sufficient justification for them to take steps to put on immediate stop to the state of things which the hon. Member revealed. The hon. Member asks that a Return should be laid on the Table of the House every six months of the number of men working more than twelve hours a day. That is not an unreasonable request. Last year it was said that only nineteen complaints had been received by the Board of Trade. I do not accept these figures at all. I believe 1,900 is nearer the truth, if we can accept, as I do, the statement of the hon. Member for Derby. If the Return would be costly, that can be avoided by the railway companies pulling down the hours of labour per day from seventeen and eighteen to twelve at once. If that were done, of course the cost would disappear. We have a right to ask from the Board of Trade how it is that, notwithstanding there had been only nineteen complaints, all those extraordinary instances quoted by the hon. Member for Derby had been allowed to occur. I gather that the hon. Member for Derby has made complaints in regard to all these cases, but beyond the ordinary official acknowledgment, nothing has been done.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: All these complaints are being inquired into at the present moment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Inquiry can take too long a time.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Inquiry is being made into every one of these cases under the Act in the ordinary way.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My answer to that is that if the inquiry is to be as perfunctory and as limited as it was in 1901, 1900, and 1889, when the inquiry was only applied to a microscopical portion of the total number of cases, as was stated by the hon. Member for Derby, it will not be of much good. I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Derby warrants at once an immediate inquiry, and that the results of that inquiry should be presented to the public as soon as possible, I find from the right hon. Gentleman's last Report that the complaints to the Board of Trade have gone down from 156 in 1895 to 19 in 1901. But during the same period the number of men killed had increased from 442 to 559; while there has been a wonderful increase in the number of men injured I believe that is due to the fact that the investigation into the long hours worked has not been so vigorous, drastic, or efficient as it should have been. I had the proud privilege of taking part in what I consider to have been the best strike that ever took place in Great Britain or Ireland against long hours. That was the railway strike in Scotland in 1891. That strike failed because the strike leaders, as happens with politicians, bit off a little bit more than they could swallow; that is, they struck against good as well as against bad railways. But that strike did not involve a question of wages, or intimidation, or association; it only involved the question of hours of labour. I venture to say that public opinion throughout the country was almost unanimously in favour of the men's demand for shorter hours. That strike failed in its immediate aim, but its failure brought about legislative action Parliament demanded that there should be no more strikes, involving the arrest of the business and commerce of the country and bringing the nation to a verge of civil war and public opinion compelled Parliament to impose on the railway companies certain conditions as to the hours of labour. But what do we find happening in the interval? Ten years have elapsed since then, and if the statements of the hon. Member for Derby are true, we are rapidly approaching to the condition of long hours which prevailed

  1119
  in 1890–1891. I believe that if we can by legislation give a reasonable maximum number of hours work to men engaged in their daily calling, we ought not to invoke the arbitrament of a strike, and that we could prevent these industrial conflicts arising over the question of long hours.
  Now, Sir, there are many Members in the House who were not present when the hon. Member for Derby made his statement. He gave instance after instance of engine drivers, firemen, goods guards, passenger guards, and shunters, who were working 70, 80, 100 hours per week, and he gave instance after instance of drivers, firemen, goods guards, and passenger guards, working continuously 20, 24, 30 and 32 hours right off. The Leader of the House, in bringing in his new Rules for our personal and domestic comfort as legislators, said that all of us know what it is to sit here for eight hours at a stretch. It is physically exhausting, and any man who has tried an all-night sitting and gone home with the milk, knows that it is physically exhausting even when we have nothing to do but to listen to each other. But I ask the House to think of an engine-driver getting up in the black gelidity of a misty, frosty November morning, and stepping on to the foot-plate of his engine at four o'clock, on the North British or Midland Railways — I am glad to say not on the London and North Western Railway—and stopping on that foot-plate, probably lashed by rain or sleet. The sense of duty induces him to suffer uncomplainingly, and he also does not care to have the mark of a complaint against his name. I maintain that no railway company has a right to ask him to remain on the foot-plate for twelve hours, and then, with only a break of an hour, to go on to the footplate for another spell of twelve hours. When we consider that that is repeatedly done both on passenger and goods trains, it is subjecting men to the temptation to be lax in their duty; to be careless, and not to have that vigilance which can only spring from a healthy mind, a restful body, and from moderate hours of duty. To work eighteen hours continuously on a breakdown is bad enough; to work for twenty-four hours down a
  1120
  well, or as a member of a breakdown gang, is bad enough; but to ask a man who has lives behind him, and who is on an engine that is in itself valuable, and, if anything happens to it, is very frequently the source of cruel injury to firemen, guards, and passengers, to work all these hours is asking too much.
  I have a suggestion to make. We read a good deal in these days of a "wayside inn," and about neutral persons arranging differences between nation and nation. I believe Lord Rosebery's great cry at the present moment is efficiency. He expresses himself as in favour, and I believe he is, of great domestic reforms. I have myself helped at meetings where he has denounced the long hours of tramway men and busmen. I see with some degree of pleasure that he has become a railway director. He has become a director of the Great Northern Railway; and I would suggest to him that he should put his illustration of the "wayside inn" into practice, and, as a director of the Great Northern, meet my hon. friend the Member for Derby at a neutral meeting place, and go over the long hours of the English railway worker, and, in a word, give practical expression to his sympathy with equal rights for all white railway men, instead of confining his attention, mainly, to the Uitlanders of Pretoria and Johannesburg. I should be delighted to see Lord Rosebery and my hon. friend the Member for Derby at such a meeting place, and I should be glad to guard the door. If these two gentlemen came together in the spirit displayed by the hon. Member for the Epping Division, capital and labour would be able to draw up a modus vivendi by which these long hours might be abolished.
  Sir, I need not go further than the speech of the hon. Member for the Epping Division. He said that long hours were dangerous to the men, were not advantageous to the companies, and were certainly most disastrous to the public. What is it that my hon. friend the Member for Derby asks for? He asks that we should know how long these hours are; that we should know how dangerous they are to the companies by ascertaining the hours of overwork; and that we might be able to measure the risk that long hours involve to the

  1121
  public by ascertaining the facts. Above all, I am myself convinced that, if you take cases of long hours on duty, and apply them to the proportion of men killed and the proportion of men injured, you will find that the long hours were coincident with accidents, and that the deaths and injuries synchronised with overwork. If that be so, it is not to the interest of the railway companies to overwork the men, or to the interest of the men that, through overwork, they should lose proper control, and subject themselves to risks and dangers which, with shorter hours, they would not be asked to face. Even if railway directors and the men themselves were willing to continue this condition of things, it would be unfair, unjust, and dangerous to the travelling public, and it ought to be stopped. How can it be stopped? It can be stopped in this way. The Act of 1893 says that if it be represented to the Board of Trade by or in behalf of the servants or any class of the servants of the railway company that the hours of labour are excessive, the Board of Trade can intervene. My hon. friend the Member for Derby has represented that the hours are excessive. He has proved his case, and in proving it has established that which has been applied to another institution, namely, that long hours are useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished. As a preliminary to their abolition, he asks for a Return of the hours of work, and never in my life have I associated myself with any proposal more gladly than with the reasonable request so felicitously put by my hon. friend.
  MR. BUTCHER (York): I confess I find myself in sympathy with almost every word that has fallen from the hon. Member for Battersea. There is one general principle in relation to this subject, as to which I venture to think every hon. Member will be found to be in accord; and that is that we should do everything in our power to discourage and to prevent excessive hours of labour which might be dangerous to the men themselves, or to the travelling public. More especially is that so with regard to drivers, firemen, and guards, for whom continuous attention is necessary, but it
  1122
  is also true of men engaged in the most dangerous employment in the country, I mean in the shunting yards of the great railway companies. The necessity for the limitation of hours is also especially true as regards men who are employed in the difficult duty, demanding, as it does, continuous attention, of a signalman in a busy cabin. My hon. friend the Member for the Epping Division has truly said that not only is the limitation of hours important in the interest of the men and in the interests of the travelling public, but that it is most important in the interests of every well-conducted railway company in the country. But if there are, and I feel there are, cases still in this country where railway companies do not recognise their duty to their men and to their own interests, then I say legislation should intervene. Upon that I think we are all agreed. The question is what is the best mode of effecting this object which we all desire.
  I think there was some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Gentleman who framed this Motion. I believe it has been altered since it was put on the Paper, and, as altered, demands that the Board of Trade should call for a Return of the hours above 12 per diem worked by railway servants. I have not the slightest objection to the Board of Trade getting any Returns that might be useful, but I do not very much like the terms of the Motion even as altered, because to my mind there are many classes of railway servants for whom twelve hours work a day would be too much. Take the drivers or guards, or firemen. Take another case, the case of a signal-man in a busy cabin. In most busy cabins the men do not work more than eight hours a day, and in some they work less, and I am quite certain that twelve hours would be greatly too much in many of these cabins. Again, in busy goods stations, twelve hours continuous work in shunting operations—which, next to the shipping industry, causes most deaths by accident — twelve hours would be a great deal too much. Therefore, I venture to suggest that if we are to have a Return it ought to be a Return in a satisfactory form. But I do not think that the object we have in view will be

  1123
  effected by any Return. What we want to do is to put the Board of Trade in motion, and to ask them to make representations to the companies which would have the effect of limiting excessive hours. The Act of 1889 made it compulsory on the companies to make Returns in the form which the Board of Trade thought advisable. That provision did not succeed in lessening the death rate of railway servants, and in 1891 a Committee was appointed by the Unionist Government of that day for the purpose of inquiring whether, and if so, in what way, the hours worked by railway servants could be restricted by legislation. That Committee reported in 1892, and a Bill was brought in on the lines of the recommendations of that Committee by a Liberal Government in 1893. I venture to think that if that Act is taken advantage of by the railway servants of the country in the way it was intended it should be, it would give us what we want. The hon. Member for Battersea, suggested a "wayside inn" meeting, but I do not know that that would be a very successful way of ending these excessive hours of labour. I venture to think that a vigorous working of the Act would be better, because the Act provides that if it is represented to the Board of Trade by or on behalf of the servants, or any class of the servants of a railway company, that the hours of those servants or that class are excessive, the Board of Trade should inquire into the matter. The Act goes further, because it gives the Board of Trade power, if they think there is reasonable ground for complaint, to call on the railway company concerned to make a new schedule of hours, and they have also power by which they can compel the railway company to adopt a schedule framed by themselves. I venture to think that if railway servants would only use that Act, and use it effectively, as I should desire they would, although I do not say it would do everything it would effect much in the desired direction.
  MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.): I do not think my hon. friend the Member for York was present in the early part of the debate, because, listening to his speech, I think one would come to
  1124
  the conclusion that he had proved that no remedies further than those which the railway servants have at their disposal at the present moment were required. He has referred to the Act of 1891, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Battersea; but I do not think the hon. Member for York quite appreciated the action taken by the Board of Trade. He apparently is of opinion that the Board of Trade had neglected to take action after representation had been made.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me when I say that if what the hon. Member for Derby said be true, as to the many instances of overwork which he stated by the score and by the hundred, I cannot reconcile that condition of things with the small number of nineteen complaints which were received and inquired into by the Board of Trade. Either the hon. Member for Derby over represented his case, or the Board of Trade have not dealt with the cases as the facts warranted.
  *MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member had been listening to what I was saying, he would have heard me say I was referring not to what he said, but to what was said by my hon. friend the Member for York. I do not think that there is any inconsistency between the facts quoted by the hon. Member for Battersea and those quoted by the hon. Member for Derby; because the hon. Member for Derby referred, as I understand it, not to the year 1901, but to the present year. In the year 1901, as the hon. Member will see from the Report made by the Board of Trade, only nineteen complaints were received in all. That is interesting, if it be true, because it shows plainly that from the year first taken, 1894, when there were seventy-two complaints received to deal with by the Board of Trade—in 1895 that number was rather more than doubled; it was then 156—from that year onward to 1901 the number gradually fell off, till in that year the complaints received were, only nineteen.
  MR. BELL: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Report for 1901 ends in June, so that six months of that year are not in that Return?
  *MR. JACKSON: I do not understand that the hon. Member intends to suggest that there is any inaccuracy in my description. The facts he gives to the House are for a different period to those which are in this Report. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to one period, the hon. Member for Derby refers to another. There is no suggestion that the Board of Trade have neglected to take, in any one of the cases of complaint lodged with them, the action prescribed for them by the Act of 1891. In one particular the hon. Member for Derby was quite right; he said the number of complaints which had been lodged in 1901 were so small that the Secretary of the Board of Trade, in reporting on the fact, pointed out what was simply the truth, that according to the figures, year by year, it would appear that the Act had been very beneficial, and that in his opinion a great portion of its work had been done. Surely that is only a statement of fact, on information presented to the Board of Trade, and there is no reason for suggesting that in the year 1901 any more pressure was put on railway servants to prevent them making complaints than there had been in the previous years. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Derby was quite frank about the matter; he said that the railway servants were indignant when they saw what credit the Secretary of the Board of Trade was giving to the companies, and how small the number of complaints were. And what happened after this indignant feeling on the part of the railway servants? The Board of Trade had forty cases of complaint within a very short time of that statement, which, to my mind, looks rather like cause and effect. All I would say is this. I have listened to the debate, and I might say a stranger listening to the discussion tonight might think there was some connection between accidents and these long hour cases which have been put up. I say there has not been one tittle of evidence adduced to the House tonight connecting directly as a cause of accident any of the long hour cases that have been put forward.
  Do not, for a moment, let me be misunderstood. I am just as much opposed to an engine driver or railway servant working long hours as the hon. Member for Derby, or the hon. Member for
  1126
  Battersea, or anybody else, and, speaking as I do as a railway director, I say there is no justification for the supposition or suggestion that it is the wish of the railway directors to have the men work long hours on their systems. I do not know by what peculiar secret my hon. Friend's company, the North Western Company, succeed in effecting and compelling absolutely that no man shall ever be on duty more than twelve hours. We have not been able to do it.
  The hon. Member for Battersea will forgive me if I am disposed to contradict him when he says that engine drivers are sometimes thirty hours on the engine plate. Such a thing could not be, and does not exist. The hon. Member for York spoke of twelve hours a day being far too long, in his opinion, for a driver to be on an express passenger train. How far does the hon. Gentleman think the express train would run at fifty miles an hour for a man to be on the footplate twelve hours?
  All I want to make clear to the House is this. I sympathise with the desire to avoid these long hours, but do not let us exaggerate. I know there are cases—and this is what I want to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Derby, because he will at once appreciate the distinction. There is a great difference between being "on duty," and being on the footplate of an engine, or at work, and no one knows better—and I do not say this offensively—than the hon. Member for Derby himself that in all these cases of long hours, it is not intentional on the part of the management that these men should be on duty so long. I have known cases in the company of which I have the honour to be a director, where men have been advised and called up for duty, and have not been able to take up that particular duty for six hours after they had been called up. Sometimes at Peterborough in the coal yards there is a state of congestion and difficulty; trains are arranged at night to start in the morning, and notice is sent forward, and men are "advised" to take up the duty at a particular time. But a block has occurred and set back everything, and the engine driver—and this also applies to the fireman and the guard—of the train many and many a time, especially if we have a glut of traffic

  1127
  coming in over which we have no control, or if we have a sudden fog in London which bl cks the trains as far as Peterborough and further north still, has never got on his engine. In many cases of that kind, although they had been waiting hours and hours for the train, the train has been cancelled and these men have never taken up their duty, though they have been "on duty" all the time. I repeat, on the cases of long hours which has been quoted, I am sure we may be allowed to reserve our decision until an opportunity has been found to have them inquired into.
  Now, it has been stated, and more than once, as an absolute fact, that almost the safest place in the world is a railway. I have examined from time to time Reports of inquiries made by Board of Trade Inspectors into accidents; I have watched carefully in order to learn from those inquiries whether there could be any possible connection between long hours cases and accidents, but anyone who has studied those Reports will come to the conclusion that there is no evidence whatever that the long hours cases have been the causes of accidents in this country. With regard to the accidents which occur to men, and which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Derby, I am sure the hon. Member does not wish the House to think that if there had been no long hours cases there would have been no such accidents.
  MR. BELL: I did not imply that. What I said was that in consequence of physical exhaustion the men were unable to be so smart or so much on the alert as they would otherwise be.
  *MR. JACKSON: I say, with all respect, that the hon. Member failed to quote a single particle of evidence in support of that view. I would be really and honestly glad of information, and if the hon. Member has such evidence I wish he would remove the impression which is firmly fixed on my mind that hitherto there has been no evidence connecting the two things. I do not say it is not possible, but it has been "if" all the way through—the evidence
  1128
  of Major Marindin, to which the hon. Member referred, was that, if so and so, a certain course would be desirable. But in dealing with facts do not let us confuse the issue. The point I wish to put to the House is this, that although we have heard a great deal tonight about these accidents, which we all deplore—and nobody more than railway directors—do not let us mix up two separate and distinct questions. We regret the long hours, but there is no foundation, as I believe, for the impression that any actual connection exists between the long hours and the accidents.
  Then the hon. Member for Derby said something about pressure and intimidation. I have been a director of a railway for about twenty years; for some time past I have filled a position of responsiblility which is by no means an easy one or one free from anxiety. I have striven to the best of my power, both by precept and by example, to encourage the men and to do the best I could for them in their several positions; and I can say with a clear conscience, and without the slightest hesitation, that I have never had brought to my knowledge the slightest particle of evidence, direct or indirect, that indicated that any man on the Great Northern system was intimidated or in any way had pressure brought to bear upon him to do that which otherwise he would not do. I will go further. On our system, and I believe the same rule appertains to all railway companies, if a man has a grievance his right course is to state it through his superior officer, his immediate chief; failing to get redress in that way, it is recognised that the man has an appeal to the directors. That appeal, when made, I have never known to be refused in any case whatever. Do let us, therefore, look at the facts in the face. The position of a railway administrator is not one free from difficulty. Everybody expects his traffic to be carried and delivered at the moment he wants it, and no doubt there are times when it is extremely difficult to get through the work. Here let me associate myself with the hon. Member for Derby. Speaking of the men as a class, I do not believe a better class of servants exists in any industry in the world. I have known cases quite recently,

  1129
  even on our own line, in which, for promptness of judgment, discretion, nerve, and courage, the men were deserving of the highest praise. Such a case was recognised lately by the Chairman of the Traffic Committee of the Company with which I am connected, in a substantial and graceful manner, by telling the men directly what was the opinion of the Board of the manner in which they had acted in extremely difficult circumstances. We all have one desire, and that is to do the best we can in the administration of these great companies, but it is not always easy. I want to make it clear to the House that, so far as my experience goes, no pressure or intimidation is brought to bear on the railway servants by the directors, or, so far as I am able to learn, by the superior officers of the men. Not only may rail way servants, if they have a grievance, go to the directors, but they may go to the Board of Trade directly or even indirectly. A post-card can be sent, bearing no name whatever. In many cases in which railway companies are called upon to make explanations they absolutely do not know the name of the person who has complained. I think, therefore, the House may dismiss from its mind the notion that such pressure as has been suggested is brought to bear upon railway servants. If such pressure were exercised I would be the first to stand by the side of the hon. Member for Derby.
  MR. BELL: I presume the right hon. Gentleman speaks only on behalf of the Great Northern Railway?
  *Mr. JACKSON: I believe I am just as much entitled to speak on behalf of every other railway company, so far as my knowledge goes.
  MR. BELL: But I gave specific cases to the contrary.
  *MR. JACKSON: If there are cases, let us have the real facts.
  AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Cambrian Railway?
  *MR. JACKSON: As regards public safety, I have, at all events, suggested to the House that there is no evidence connecting long hours with accidents. I believe railway travelling in this country is as safe as in any other part of the world. But what is the House going to do by this Resolution? I believe the hon. Member for Derby referred to some observations of mine with regard to the "forging of fetters" by the Board of Trade. I feel, and I have often expressed the feeling, that the Board of Trade has pressure put upon it by the House of Commons, frequently with an incomplete knowledge of the real facts of the case, and railway companies are hampered and put to great expense, many times unnecessarily and for no good purpose, by reason of the restrictions of the Board of Trade. Therefore, I have no particular fancy for the Board of Trade in matters of this kind. During the time of the Railway Rates agitation, and during the inquiries which resulted in the Act for the Prevention of Accidents on Railways, the information which the railway companies were called upon to supply in many cases took their chief officers the best part of a week to obtain, and sometimes it was almost impossible to get it. I say have a right, as a railway director, to appeal to the Board of Trade to avoid hampering the administration of railways in cases where, in my humble judgment, possibly guided by the practical knowledge of those with whom I am associated, I am led to the conclusion that such hampering is doing harm. I am against these Returns. I am not against giving information which is calculated to promote a good object. I do not know what view my right hon. friend is going to express. My hon. friend the Member for the Epping Division of Essex went further than I would go. He said that the multiplication of these Returns entails an amount of labour of which not a single Member of this House who has no knowledge of the inside can have any conception, as they involve the examination of the hours of coming on and going off duty of every individual servant of the company. I say they entail enormous labour and great cost, and they ought not to be pressed on the companies without sufficient reason. If my right

  1131
  hon. friend feels that, as ten years have elapsed since the return under the Act of 1889, a similar Return might now be called for, to enable a comparison to be made, as the hon. Member for Derby very fairly put it, between the state of affairs then and now, I think that is the very utmost he should ask for. I believe it would answer all the practical purposes the hon. Member has in view. I know how unpopular railway shareholders and railway directors are, and what a fallacy it is to suggest that railway directors are a powerful party in this House, but surely I am within my right in claiming—and I believe this will readily be conceded to me—that those who see matters from the inside, and, therefore possibly have some knowledge which those who see the case only from the outside do not possess, should be permitted from time to time to state their views to the House.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): I shall confine my remarks to a very few of the many points which have been raised in this very interesting debate. I think everybody who heard my hon. and gallant friend the Member for West Newington, and my hon. friend the Member for Derby, will admit that they put their case with great care, fairness, and moderation, and the debate has proceeded on those lines. Although I cannot agree with all that was said by the right hon. Member for North Leeds, I think we all feel that he has added some practical considerations which ought to be borne in mind before we come to a decision upon this question. The reason for putting forward this Motion is that the Act of 1893 has not proved a complete success. That Act was intended to reduce the hours of railway servants, by giving the Board of Trade power to require the railway companies to submit schedules of hours of working, whenever a complaint was made by railway servants. In point of fact, although a number of such complaints have been made, in which the Board of Trade have taken action—and I believe there is no allegation that in any case in which a complaint has been made, that complaint has not been gone into and dealt with by the Board of Trade—at the same time, it is
  1132
  perfectly clear, from the fact stated by the hon. Member who moved, and the hon. Member who seconded this Motion, that there still exist a great many cases in which the hours of labour are far too long. Even the right hon. Member for North Leeds did not attempt to traverse that proposition.
  *MR. JACKSON: I do not think there was a single case pointed out where the booked hours were long. I think the management of the railway would be highly culpable if the booked hours were inaccurate.
  MR. BRYCE: I think if hon. Members will look at the reports of inquiries held by the Board of Trade, they will find cases where the booked hours were too long. I think it is clear, upon the face of those reports, that even the booked hours are far too long. But why has the Act of 1893 not been a complete success? I cannot understand, even after the statement which has been made to us, why the number of complaints addressed to the Board of Trade has dwindled down, but I am told that it is owing to the delays which have taken place, on the part of the Board of Trade, in dealing with these cases. The result has been that impatience has arisen, people have become disappointed, and they have concluded that it is no use bringing forward complaints; and consequently complaints have become fewer and fewer every year. Under these circumstances my hon. friend asks for these Returns, which can be ordered by the Board of Trade under the Act of 1889. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to dispute that he has the power to do this, and therefore there need not be a great deal of argument upon this point. I think it is more important to inquire why the Act of 1893 has not completely succeeded; because I believe that if my hon. friend the Member for Derby were to press for a more vigorous enforcement of this Act, he would effect more than he can possibly effect by having these Returns. What is the case which the hon. and gallant Member for West New-

  1133
  ington and the hon. Member for Derby have proved? They have proved not only that the hours of railway servants are too long in a great many cases, but that I there is an increase of accidents, and the right hon. Member for North Leeds has not shown any reason why these accidents should have increased. In spite of all the attention given to this question, accidents are increasing, and therefore my hon. friends have a very strong ground for insisting that this fact ought to be considered.
  I will meet the challenge which has been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds, and I will show that there is some connection between accidents and long hours. Major Marindin, in his evidence before the Committee of 1891, said that in the number of cases of accidents he investigated during four years, there were forty-seven in which attention was called to the long hours worked; in eighteen of those forty-seven cases, men had been at work for too long hours; and in nine, the accident was to some extent attributable to long hours. There has been no subsequent collection of statistics similar to those I have just quoted, but I think that here we have a case which meets the demand of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds.
  *MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten for the moment that all these statistics are always available for every year. The Report on every inquiry made by the Board of Trade is published, and I have watched with the greatest care in every case to see how many hours the men have been on duty, and in what way, if at all, the inspector who made the inquiry connected the accident with the hours. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that these statistics are still available.
  MR. BRYCE: My reply to the right hon. Gentleman's observation is, that no systematic calculation of the relation of hours to accidents has been made since Major Marindin gave that evidence.
  1134
  I have no doubt that the proportion of those four years holds good now. This is the last case in which those statistics were tabulated. I do not think, however, that there is a single hon. Member of this House who could not, rom his own recollection, supply some case where there has been some connection between the number of hours of labour and the accident. I remember a case in which a signalman had been on duty so many hours that he had become practically dazed, and was totally unfit for his duty. The thing is too obvious to the common sense we can bring to bear on the matter to require any further argument. It is perfectly clear that, if a man has been at work for perhaps 27 hours continuously, he cannot be competent to discharge his duties as a signalman, a driver, or a goods guard. The case put by hon. friend the Member for York is not one which is very much to the point. These accidents do not occur so much in the case of drivers of passenger trains, because the engines are changed at different points of the journey, and the engine driver is not for such a long time continued on duty. It is in the case of the goods trains that the difficulty arises, because their hours are not only very long, but very uncertain, and unexpected delays arise, which oblige the men to be kept at work much beyond their booked time. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite will correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that you have always the same fireman and the same engine driver together on the same turn of duty, and if one is exhausted or overcome by sleep, the other by doing the whole of the work becomes exhausted at the same time, and, therefore, you get both of them fatigued. The real danger is not so much in the booked time as in the excess, and, although I admit that it is not always possible for a railway company to keep to the booked hours, and that there must be a certain number of emergency cases, I am very far from believing that the most is done for dealing with those cases. The case made by my hon. friend the Member for Derby is not only a case of continuous hours upon one or two days, but of an excessive number of hours often during the whole week, and that cannot be explained by the theory of emergency which

  1135
  is plausibly put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If a man is employed for 116 hours per week, it is perfectly obvious that that man cannot be fit to go on with his work, and no temporary emergency caused by excess of traffic, or fog, or accidents blocking the line, will explain cases of that kind. I am afraid that it will be necessary, if railway companies are to deal properly with cases of that kind, they will have to enlarge their staff, and so relieve the men who are over-fatigued by an excessive number of hours per week.
  I come now to the question of what is practical to be done. Although I believe that my hon. friends are well entitled to insist upon these Returns, and although I hope the right hon. Gentleman will grant them, and grant them in an ampler measure than has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds, I do hope that something will be done to carry out the Act of 1893 more vigorously. I do not at all deny that there is a great deal of difficulty in the matter. I had to administer the Act for more than a year at the Board of Trade, and no one was more anxious to work the act fairly than Sir Courtenay Boyle and Sir F. Hopwood, who were then at the head of the Railway Department, but it was constantly represented to me, and I felt there was a great deal of force in the representations, that it was necessary to proceed very cautiously in the matter, and that it was easier to lead railway companies than to drive them. Although the right hon. Member for North Leeds says that railway directors have no power in this House, I venture to say that there is no body in this country that has a greater vis inertiœ than the railway companies. Therefore, I should not venture to press the Board of Trade to act with severity or haste in endeavouring to bring the railway companies rather more up to the mark, because I feel that the relations between the Board and the railway companies, which ought to be amicable relations, will be much better if the railway companies are induced to move by persuasion rather than by compulsion. It should be remembered that the only remedy the Board of Trade possesses is to bring the railway companies before the
  1136
  Railway Commissioners, and that is a process which involves very considerable delay and also a certain amount of uncertainty. It is evidently the duty of the Board of Trade, when taking a case before the Commissioners, to select a strong case, in which it is certain that it will receive a decision which will be instructive and typical for other cases to come. At the same time, when I bear in mind that this Act has now been in force for eight years, and I see how few are the cases in which the Board of Trade appear to have acted, while it has acted in all the cases brought before it, and in which the hours of labour have, in fact, been reduced, and how many are the cases which are apparently still pending owing to the recalcitrant behaviour of the railway companies—
  MR. JACKSON: No.
  MR. BRYCE: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Reports—
  *MR. JACKSON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair to the railway companies. They have plenty of sins of their own to bear, but I know of no case in which the word which the right hon. Gentleman has applied to the railway companies is justified.
  M. BRYCE: We are becoming extraordinarily sensitive. I will certainly withdraw the word recalcitrant or any term that gives offence to my right hon. friend the Member for North Leeds. I will substitute the term that the railway companies have not been particularly expeditious. All I say is that if hon. Members will look at the Reports issued by the Board of Trade on this subject in the last few years, they will see that every year there have been a number of cases in which the railway companies have objected to the course which the Board of Trade suggested, and in which the Board of Trade have not been able to get their proposals adopted and carried out. In every

  1137
  case where the Board of Trade thought that the objections were reasonable, they have said so, but in a good many other cases they have stated in these Reports that the railway companies have refused to comply with their request, and that that refusal continues. I ask whether that is not, in the opinion of those who consult these Reports, a fair statement of the case in the circumstances, and subject to anything which the President of the Board of Trade may be able to tell us. He may be able to give further reasons, and, if so, I have no doubt they will be solid reasons, why the Board of Trade have not taken more drastic action, but I would say that the impression made upon my own mind by this debate, and by the cases adduced by my hon. friends, is that the time has come when rather more might be done than has yet been done, and when some more serious effort must be made to reduce what every one must admit is—not only in the interest of railway employees, but in the interest of the travelling public—a very serious national evil.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question with respect to which this Motion has been brought forward is one which is likely to command the sympathies of the House. We are all grateful to the railway servants on whose care and vigilance a great deal of the safety of the travelling public depends. The hon. Member for Derby made the principal speech from that side of the House, and I think everybody will admit that the railway servants have in him an able defender, and one who, making allowance for his point of view, is capable of stating his case with great moderation. I think it will be equally granted that my right hon. friend the Member for North Leeds has stated his case on behalf of the railway companies with equal force and moderation. There is another point, I think, upon which there
  1138
  is a general concurrence, and in this I include my right hon. friend the Member for North Leeds. I think we must all admit that between accidents on the railways and long hours some connection there must necessarily be. It is impossible that men who have been working until their energies are exhausted should have the same physical and mental alertness as they would have if their hours were comparatively short. I am disposed to agree with my right hon. friend that the amount of direct evidence on this subject is not quite so great as might be expected. I think it has been forgotten by more than one hon. Member who has taken part in the debate that as a contributor cause of accidents long hours are certainly not responsible for more, probably, than a small fraction of the accidents which occur. Accidents are a natural and necessary consequence of the inherent danger of railway work itself, and there is not only no proof forthcoming that the majority of accidents are due to long hours, but I am convinced in my own mind that while they are no doubt a contributory cause of accident, they are only so to a comparatively limited extent. The House should distrust any argument based on the assumption that we may trace a close correspondence between the number of accidents and the hours which are worked.
  Now, there are certain points which, I think, should be borne in mind by the House, and which have been to some extent lost sight of in this debate. If legislation to regulate the hours of railway servants has been accepted by Parliament, it has been accepted on the ground of safety, and of safety alone. That is an important matter to bear in mind, and it at once puts out of court the suggestion of my hon. friend the Member for the Shipley Division, that the protection given to men working on railways should be extended to clerks and others who are in railway employment. That is a suggestion which I, for my part,

  1139
  cannot listen to for a moment. It must also be remembered that a large number of railway accidents are probably unavoidable. No matter what precautions may be taken, no matter what legislation we may pass, no matter how carefully we administer the laws, still there will be a considerable number of accidents. It is impossible in railway work to avoid cases occasionally in which hours must be worked far longer than any one desires to see worked under normal conditions. When a breakdown occurs, and in a number of other eventualities, a railway manager cannot avoid the necessity of increasing the work of railway servants. We must always expect that long hours will be worked on railways in emergencies. There is another point. The hon. Member for Derby has cited a number of cases in which hours of undue length have been worked; but in considering how far those would justify us in anything like a new departure in legislation, we must take into account the number of persons employed. I venture to say that the actual number of cases where the hours of work have been excessive, as compared with the number of persons employed on our railways, will really be found to be comparatively small.
  MR. BELLsaid that on some railways the whole of the men belonging to certain grades would be working long hours.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am quite prepared to admit that all railways are not on a par in this matter. Statistics of accidents are apt to be misleading, unless you have all the circumstances before you. Though accidents may have increased, I think it will be found that
  1140
  they have not increased in proportion to the increase of traffic. It is obvious that there again, if you wish to form any conclusion as to whether there has been an improvement with respect to safety on railways, it is necessary to consider not only the number of accidents, but the number in proportion to the greater number engaged in railway work, and also the increased traffic. That is an important consideration, and one which may lead us to another conclusion than that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen has arrived at.
  The Board of Trade is asked by the Motion before the House to put in force the powers it possesses to call for Returns of the hours exceeding twelve hours a day worked by railway servants, and of cases where work is resumed with intervals of less than nine hours. The House may ask how a Government Department possessing these powers do not put them into execution. In order to explain this matter, I am afraid I must ask the House to look back for some years, so as to get some light thrown upon the subject. About twelve years ago this question of long hours attracted a great deal of attention in this House. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was President of the Board of Trade in 1889, he brought in a Bill, afterwards passed into law, which contained a clause giving the Board of Trade the very powers referred to in the Motion now before the House. What were these powers? They were that every railway company should make a Return to the Board of Trade of the hours exceeding twelve per day worked by railway servants, and of

  1141
  cases where work is resumed with intervals of less than nine hours. That appears to me to be a very salutary law. Why, then, have these Returns not been asked for, for a considerable number of years? The reason is this, that that clause in the Act of 1889 was superseded, after inquiry by a Committee, by the Act of 1893; and although this particular clause was not, as a matter of fact, repealed, it fell into desuetude.
  MR. BRYCE: But it still exists.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of its existence, but so completely has it been forgotten and buried, that I confess that I did not know of it until lately. Now the House will observe that the Act of 1893 was intended to be a substitute for this particular clause, and to provide a better remedy for the evil. Therefore, the contention before the House amounts to this, that the Act of 1893 has been a failure, and that we ought to go back to the provisions of the Act which it superseded in order that the control of the Board of Trade over railway servants might be more effective. Now, is there any justification for that? Has the Act of 1893 been a failure? The hon. Member for Derby claimed that it had been, and the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen made the same statement.
  MR. BRYCE: I cannot accept that. I said it had not done all that was expected of it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: "It had not been a success" was the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman. But these are assumptions, I venture to say. The
  1142
  hon. Member for Derby has referred to the fact that the complaints made under the Act of 1893 had decreased from 156 in 1895 to nineteen last year. A very curious deduction has been made from that diminution in the number of complaints. Some hon. Gentlemen have gone as far as to say that because there have been fewer complaints, therefore the Act has been a failure. That appears to me to be a very extraordinary inference to draw; and the very opposite inference has been drawn by the officers of the Board of Trade. One of the inspectors, Sir Francis Hopwood, in his Report, states that he hopes the falling off in the number of representations is an indication that the Act has done the work for which it was placed on the Statute Book. There is no doubt that the evil of too long hours existed formerly; it is also true that if it does exist now, the Statute provides a remedy. But the complaints made to-day are not that the number of hours worked are largely in excess of twelve hours, but that the twelve hours work has not been reduced to ten hours, and ten hours to eight hours. I submit that that fact alone, instead of proving that the Act of 1893 is a failure, shows that it has been a great success. The complaints made last year only numbered nineteen, but during the last four months, through the activity and instrumentality of the hon. Member for Derby, they have mounted up to between sixty and seventy. I take it that the inference drawn by the officers of the Board of Trade as to the success of the Act of 1893 has not pleased the hon. Member for Derby and his friends, and they have shown much greater activity in searching out cases of complaint in order to prove that in reality the success of the Act has not been so great as it has been represented to be. I do not object to that;

  1143
  it is a very natural course for the hon. Member to take, and it is no doubt his duty to do so, but the mere fact that he cites these cases is an admission that they are sub judice. He says "Here is a proof that the Act is not a success." But that argument does not convince me. Some of the cases he quotes may have explanations of a very plausible character; and I am not prepared to say, until I go into them, what conclusion I can draw from them.
  The position at the present moment is this. The hon. Member for Derby says that the Act of 1893 has not been a success. I doubt that conclusion, and believe that it has been a success. But I am perfectly willing that the matter should be brought to a test. Though I do not think there is a case for requiring these Returns from the railway companies on the ground that any laches on their part has been proved, I suggest that as ten years have now passed since the Committee reported, we should have again from the railway companies a Return which may be compared with the Return obtained under the Act of 1899. The House will then be able to make a comparison between the condition of things today and the condition of things as it was when the Committee made their Report ten years ago. If it be true that the Act of 1893 has been a failure, and that the hours of work of railway servants at the present time are unduly long, as they were ten years ago, it will be for the House to consider whether any further action should be taken. It does not appear to me that we should go further at the present time. In these circumstances, I would be prepared to accept
  1144
  the Resolution if it were slightly amended I would suggest that it should run thus—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should exercise their power to call for Returns of the hours exceeding 12 hours a day worked by railway servants whose duty involves the safety of trains and passengers, and of cases where work is resumed with intervals of less than nine hours."
  That would give a Return exactly comparable in every respect with the Return obtained under the powers of the Act of 1889.
  MR. BELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to call for a Return of the hours worked above 12, 13, 14 and 15?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would call for a Return exactly in the same shape as before.
  CAPTAIN NORTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, because he was of opinion that the House was prepared to come to an immediate decision without that Motion.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If my suggestion is not accepted, I would move it in the form of an Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not possible now to move an Amendment. It is on the stroke of midnight.
  (12.0.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 144. (Division List No. 50.)
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should exercise their power to call for Returns of the hours exceeding 12 per day worked by railway servants, and of cases where
  1148
  work is resumed with intervals of less than nine hours.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Renfrew Harbour Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clause 5 be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 4 and Tramroad No. 9 be struck out of the Bill.
  Read, and agreed to.

  ROSSENDALE VALLEY TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  SOUTH SHIELDS, SUNDERLAND, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAIL WAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order) and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Earl Cadogan. Leave given to present the said Petition.
  CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order) and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Borough Council of Bethnal Green. Leave given to present the said Petition.
  CONSETT WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RETURNS, REPORTS ETC.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen to the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, for the year 1900–1901.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  Accounts of the receipt and expenditure of the capital, and of the income derived from the lands and other property held for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital, and the foundation of Samuel Travers, Esquire, for the year ended 31st March, 1901, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at Four o'clock, to Thursday next, at quarter past Four o'clock.