Sitting of 31 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, being returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—number of Bills (see page 245).

  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MENAI BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  WHITSTABLE IMPROVEMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; An Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAIL WAY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered to be read the third time.
  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY (NEW LINES, ETC.) BILL [LORDS].
  Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 12).
  Sir LEWIS M'IVER reported from the Committee on Group 12 of Railway Bills. That, it being improbable that the time at the disposal of the Committee before the Adjournment of the House would allow them to conclude their inquiry upon the remaining Bills in the Group, the Committee had adjourned.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill, Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway Order Confirmation Bill, Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  Licensing Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill, Eastbourne's Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—Leicester Corporation Bill [Lords], North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill [Lords], Wrexham District Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords], with Amendments.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered tomorrow.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Narborough; Swansea; York; and Hollingworth; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Ramsbottom; Hagbourne; Newchurch; and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From King's Norton; and Northfield; to lie upon the Table.

  ROYAL DECLARATION.
  Petitions against alteration of law: From England; Scotland; Ireland; Wales; the Channel Islands; Australia (Queensland (four), New South Wales, South Australia, Melbourne, Western Australia); New Zealand (Christchurch (two), Auckland, Akaroa, etc., Hawks Bay, Wellington, Reefton, Lyttleton); Tasmania; Canada (Manitoba (three), Quebec, Ottawa, etc., Toronto); British Columbia; California; United States of America (New York); Demerara; British Guiana; Barbadoes; Bermuda; India (Agopalapuram, Amanthapuram, Agra,
  268
  Anbinagaram, Arokiapuram, Assam (two); Berhampore, Calcutta, Cherrapongee, Cochin, Cozencherry. Dharrumanagaram, Dohnavur, Guntur, Jubbulpore, Kapasdanga, Kallivellai, Kotgarh, Kalathukundi, Kunnankulam, Lakshumipuram, Lucknow, Madathuvelli, Madras, Manala, Mengnanapuram, Murwara, Nalumavady, Neivelie, Octacamund, Paramankurichi, Pattakari, Pitchivellai, Poolikudyurappa, Pootharaknanvillay, Poovarasur, Pragasapurum, Pulhukudi East, Rachania, Samaria, Santhapuram. Sebagnampuram, Shekkadivellai, Sonaganveli, Suhramanryapuram, Sukkur, Vellalanvellai, Ceylon (eighteen), Singapore, Mauritius (ten); Africa (Sierra Leone, Bonny, Akropong, Gold Coast, Usagra, German East Africa, Mombasa, Egypt); Asia (China, Japan, Syria and Asia Minor); Persia (Shiraz, Kirman); Germany; Prussia (Westphalia); Spain (Madrid); Turkey (Constantinople; Malta); and Austria (Vienna): to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
  Committee to consider of authorising the Remission of certain Debts due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the Commisssioners of Public Works in Ireland in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans (King's Recommendation signified), tomorrow.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st April; Mr. Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 310.]
  ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKINGS (COMPANIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st April; Mr. Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]

  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of

  269
  Parliamentary Paper, No. 268, of Session 1901) as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]

  INLAND REVENUE.
  Copy presented, of Forty-fifth Report of the Commissioners, for the year ended 31st March 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th April; Mr. Goddard]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS, 1900–1901.
  Return presented, relative thereto, [ordered 15th July; Mr. Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the President for 1901–2 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1S89.
  Copies presented, of Minutes sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause s of the Act for the following Counties:—County of Cambridge (Fifth Minute), dated 14th July 1902; County of Chester (Seventh Minute), dated 14th July 1902; County of East Sussex (Seventh Minute), dated 14th July 1902: County of Middlesex (Sixth Minute;, dated 14th July 1902; County of the Isle of Ely (Cambridgeshire) (Second Minute), dated 14th July 1902; [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations relating to Museums and Institutions (from 1st August 1902 to 31st July 1903) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Cleric of the House:—1. Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham), — Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February 1900: Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 315.] 2. Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster).—Further Return relative
  270
  thereto [ordered 8th August 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 316.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTE.

  Post Office Savings Bank Deposits.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the statement contained on page 6 of the Report of the Select Committee on Savings Bank Funds, will he state the number of deposits not exceeding £1 which were lodged in the Post Office Savings Bank during the year ending 31st December last; and in how many cases during the year a notice was sent to depositors whose balance exceeded £200.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It is estimable that the deposits under £1, referred to on page 6 of the Report of the Select Committee on Savings Bank Funds, are 60 per cent, of the whole number. On this basis the number of deposits under £1 made during the year ended 31st December last would be 9,011,187. In 27,706 cases during the same year a notice was sent to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank whose balances exceeded £200.

  Scottish Inland Revenue Surveyors.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that surveyors of Inland Revenue are employed by county councils and burgh councils in Scotland as assessors for the j purposes of the Land Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and are subject to a number of different employers, will arrangements be made for these officers to be under the exclusive direction and control of the Inland Revenue.
  (Answered by Mr Austen Chamberlain.) The existing system, as at present administered, is not found in practice to impair the authority of the Board of Inland Revenue over its officers; and I am not prepared to suggest that, when a local authority in Scotland appoints the Inland Revenue surveyor to be assessor under the Lands Valuation Acts, it should at the same time transfer to the Board of Inland Revenue its own functions under those Acts.

  Londonderry Postal Staff—Leave Arrangements.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a notice was posted in the Londonderry Post Office on the 11th instant stating that annual leave was suspended temporarily; will he state by whose authority this course was adopted; what arrangements are being made for the resumption of leave; on what date will the leave recommence; and what notice did the officials due to go on leave receive of the stoppage of their leave.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The grant of annual leave is always dependent on the exigencies of the Service, and the Postmaster of Londonderry found that the pressure of work rendered it impossible to allow the usual number to have leave this month. There were two officers already on leave and four employed on official duty elsewhere. Every effort is being made to reinforce the staff at Londonderry and to expedite the resumption of the usual arrangements for annual leave. The earliest possible notice was given of the unavoidable temporary suspension of leave by the Surveyor's direction.

  Irish University Commission—Com missioners' Expenses.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount received under the head of travelling expenses by each member of the Irish University Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The amount paid to each Commissioner consists only of his actual travelling expenses together with the subsistence allowance, if any, payable under the Regulations for Temporary Commissions. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by giving the details in each case.

  Indian Land Assessments.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the average percentage on the gross produce of agriculture which the Government of India levies in the form of land assessment on agriculturists in each presidency in India.
  272
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Resolution which the Government of India have recently published on the Land Revenue Systems of British India summarises the available information on the subject. In districts where the assessments are based on the rents levied by zemindars, or intermediate landlords, the land revenue bears no direct relation to the gross produce. Elsewhere the assessments arc on the cultivators, and the ratio varies from 4 per cent. to 20 per cent.

  Native Barracks in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have yet arranged to provide improved native barracks in the cantonments at Cawnpore and Lucknow.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on 22nd April.†

  Cancer in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet been able to procure information in regard to the prevalence of cancer in India, with a view to the preparation of statistics on the subject.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am waiting an answer from the Government of India to a letter I addressed to them on the subject in May last. Some time will probably elapse before they will be in a position to reply.

  Technical and Industrial Education in India.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE:: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if the Committee appointed by Lord Curzon to inquire into the condition of technical and industrial education have completed their inquiry and submitted their Report; whether the Government of India have formulated any new scheme of instruction on the recommendations of the Committee; and, if so, will he place the Report and the proposals of the Government of India upon the Table of the House.
  †
  †See (4) Debates, evi., 931.

  273
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I believe that the Committee referred to have completed their inquiry and submitted their Report to the Viceroy, but I have not yet received the Report, nor do I think that the Government of India have yet formulated their conclusions upon it. When I learn these conclusions I shall be glad to communicate them to my hon. friend.

  Trawling in Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that eight trawlers owned by the Grimsby and North Sea Steam Trawling Company, and six trawlers owned by the Metropolitan Steam Fishing Company have been transferred to the Norwegian flag, and registered at Brevig under the name of the Zodiac Steam Fishing Company, so that as foreign trawlers they can now fish in the Moray Firth, will he state the result of the action which the Norwegian Government has taken, with a view to test the bona fides of these transfers.
  (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray.) I have not yet any information to give.

  Meteorological Council—Expenditure in the Three Kingdoms.
  MR. WYLIE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the total amount expended by the Meteorological Council in England per annum; also in Scotland and in Ireland respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I am informed that the expenditure of the Council has never been analysed according to the locality in which it has been incurred, and that any such analysis would necessarily, from the circumstances of the case, be incomplete and misleading.

  Bander Abbas.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he has received any information regarding the damage in life and property caused by the shocks of earthquake which have occurred at Bander Abbas since 9th July; and whether the ancient fortress of Ormuz and the Island of Kishin are destroyed.
  274
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) No, Sir, we have not yet received any information on the subject.

  Patents Fees.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will lay upon the Table a comparative statement of the fees payable by an inventor in taking out a patent in Great Britain and Ireland and in the United States of America.
  (Answered by Mr, Gerald Balfour.) The information desired by the noble Lord will be found at page 157 of the Appendices to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the working of the Patent Acts, presented to Parliament in 1901 [Cd. 530].

  Irish Railways—Conveyance of Cattle etc.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct the attention of the Irish Department of Agriculture to the loss sustained by stock owners, and the injury caused to cattle, by the present arrangements of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company upon fair days at Midleton, County Cork, with a view to secure an improvement in the present service.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No complaint has been made to the Department in this matter, but if particulars of the alleged loss and injury are brought under its notice by any person aggrieved due inquiry will be made.

  Water for Troops on Active Service.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view of preventing the danger arising from enteric fever or other waterborne diseases in war, he will consider the advisability of establishing on a permanent basis some such scheme as that which was under favourable consideration, in respect to the late War in South Africa, by which the soldier in the field was to be provided with approved or safe water or other liquids.

  275
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Experiments will be made on the first opportunity with improved watercarts designed for bringing clarified water to places appointed for its sterilisation. Different methods of sterilising water by heat, filtration, or chemical means are under consideration. The scheme has not yet been sufficiently tested to justify its establishment on a permanent basis.

  Notification of Soldiers' Deaths—Case of B. M'Dermott.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the parents of the late Gunner Bernard M'Dermott (No. 24,813), 18 Company Royal Artillery, Gibraltar, have been informed of his death; and if so, when: And whether his effects have been realised and the proceeds distributed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The estate of this soldier was issued to the father on 7th July. As the deceased gave the name of a brother as the next-of-kin at an address where he could not be traced, great trouble has necessarily been experienced in first tracing the brother and then ascertaining the information that the father was still alive.

  South African War—Goods Commandeered and Requisitioned.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what action has been taken, or will be taken, in reference to payments of claims for compensation for losses sustained by the abstraction of goods commandeered in the Transvaal Colony during the late war; and whether he will give the information required, both as to goods commandeered by the Boer forces, and goods commandeered by our own Military authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) Claims for goods requisitioned by our Military authorities are being dealt with by Claims Boards appointed by the Commander in Chief of the Forces in South Africa. Commissioners are in course of being appointed to investigate claims for goods commandeered by the Boor forces.

  Concentration Camps—Maintenance Charges.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for
  276
  the Colonies, whether the charges made, under the proclamation of 15th August 1901, for the cost of maintenance of wives and children in the concentration camps against burghers on commando who did not surrender before 15th September have now been cancelled; and whether in the cases of the farms sold under the proclamation to make good those charges, steps have been or will now be taken to reinstate in these farms the burghers whoso farms were thus sold.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No steps have been taken to recover the cost of maintenance since the conclusion of peace. Farms which were being advertised for sale when the terms of surrender were signed were withdrawn by notice published on 6th June. No other action has been taken in the matter, but a report from Lord Milner is now on the way home.

  Transvaal Mines—Duty on Explosives.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Johannesburg Chamber of Mines in favour of the imposition of a coast duty of 5s. to 7s. 6d. per case on all blasting explosives imported into South Africa; whether the effect of such a duty, amounting to £10 to £15 per case, has been considered by His Majesty's Government with reference to British manufacturers who have borne the war taxation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) (1) My attention has been called to a resolution of the nature referred to by the hon. Member. (2) The question of the taxation of dynamite is under consideration.

  Civil Service Superannuation.
  MR. ARTHUR MORTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is now able to give an answer to the memorial from the civil servants asking for an inquiry into the terms and conditions of the existing system of superannuation in the Civil Service; and, if not, whether he can see his way to granting a day for the discussion of the question before the conclusion of the present Sitting.

  277
  (Answered by Mr. A. J Balfour.) The Government propose to appoint a small Commission to inquire into the working of the system of superannuation embodied in the Superannuation Acts, and to report whether, without increasing the charge on public funds for non-effective services, any change in the system is desirable, either in the interests of civil servants or the State.

  Land Registry Office.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether an opportunity will be afforded this Session to discuss rise Vote for the Registrar and other officials of the Land Registry Office (Class III, Vote 4); and, if not, whether he will give facilities, either before the adjournment of tin; House in August, or during the Autumn session in the present year, for discussing the advisability of an inquiry into the working of the Land Transfer Act, 1897.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid that it will be impossible to allot any special time for the discussion of this Vote before Supply closes; and I cannot give any pledge that an opportunity for a debate upon the administration of the Land Registry Office will be found during the course of the Autumn session.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Censorship.
  MR. ROCHE: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the censorship regulations now in force in the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, and in Cape Colony; and whether he can state the names and qualifications of the censors in each of these colonies.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Censorship is now abolished, with the exception of a modified censorship on Press telegrams to and from South Africa, and on publications in South Africa. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are newspapers from this country now allowed to be delivered?
  MR. BRODRICK: There was a censorship on newspapers for delivery in South Africa. I am not aware whether it is entirely removed.

  Re-stocking South African Farms.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps, if any, are being taken to make known to parties concerned with the re-stocking of farms in South Africa the resource in horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs, of the United Kingdom for breeding purposes; also if his Department is taking steps to make the wants of South Africa for re-stocking known to the agriculturists and breeders of the United Kingdom.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): We addressed the Colonial Office on the subject of re - stocking South African farms just before the-close of the war. I have since been in communication with them on the subject of certain agricultural appointments in those colonies. Mr. Smith went out as Chief Agricultural Adviser to the High Commissioner at the end of April, and as soon as we receive information as to the requirements of the new colonies we shall at once communicate it to the agriculturists and breeders of this country. If the hon. Member will refer to the recent number of the Journal of the Board of Agriculture he will see articles there dealing with the probable demand for breeding stock, and the general conditions and prospects of agriculture in South Africa.

  China Squadron—H.M.S. "Terrible."
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any official Report to show that, owing to the coal premium in China, the cruiser "Terrible" has only put in eighteen days sea time during eighteen months on the station, and the Squadron was unable last year to carry out its usual sea exercises; and, if so, will he say what steps, if any, have been taken to remedy such a state of affairs.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER, Belfast, W.): No Report to the effect suggested

  279
  by the hon. Member has been received. The Squadron did not carry out the annual cruises in company last year for various reasons, but lack of coal was not one of them. There is no shortage of coal on the station.

  Foreign Labour in Roumania.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the law passed in Roumania in March last, prohibiting the employment of Jewish working men in any trade or calling, is in accordance with the provisions of the Berlin Treaty; and whether His Majesty's Government has entered, or will enter, any protest against this legislation.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): The law in question, which applies to all foreigners, does not specifically mention the Jews, but if in effect it constitutes a disability of the Jews as such, it would, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be inconsistent with Article 44 of the Treaty of Berlin. His Majesty's Ministers at Bucharest has made friendly representations to the Roumanian Government on the subject, and will continue to do what he properly can in the interests of the Jews.

  Australian Immigration Restriction Act —Seamen Deserters.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the treaties which have been concluded between His, Majesty's Government and foreign Governments relative to the recovery of merchant seamen deserters leave foreign and British ships equally subject to the penalties imposed by the Australian Immigration Restriction Act, 1901, upon the master or owner of any vessel from which any prohibited immigrant enters the Commonwealth.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Pottery Trade—Workmen's Compensation for Lead Poisoning.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state whether the scheme of workmen's compensation in cases of lead poisoning communicated by the employers to the workers is a complete scheme intended to fulfil the promises made during the recent arbitration on the special rules, or if there are other portions of the scheme not made public; and will he state if the scheme extends to the whole potting trade in all parts of the United Kingdom.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I do not know what statement with regard to the scheme has been made public. I have received copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company which pottery manufacturers have formed in connection with the scheme, and of its rules and regulations. These documents appear to me to contain a complete scheme for compensation to workpeople in potteries who may be suspended from work on account of lead poisoning. The scheme is of course voluntary on the part of the manufacturers; and there is no power to make it compulsory. But it is open to all pottery manufacturers to join, and more than a hundred firms, including nearly all the leading potters in North Staffordshire, have already become members. I think the best results may be expected from the action which the manufacturers have thus taken.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company before Parliament as a Parliamentary Paper?
  *MR RITCHIE: I am not sure that that would be a proper course, but I will consider it.

  Glaze Testing.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state who tests

  281
  for the Home Office samples of glaze when application is made by manufacturers of china and earthenware for various exemptions from certain of the special rules; how many such samples have been tested since the new special rules came into force; and what arrangements are made for testing samples taken from time to time from firms working under such exemptions.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The present arrangements is that sample of glaze, whether formally submitted by manufacturers or taken by the inspectors, are referred to the Government Laboratory for examination as to insolubility or absence of lead. So far there are only nineteen firms under the exemptions which depend on the question of lead, the earliest dating from April 5th and the latest from July 25th last. Of these, sixteen relate to leadless glazes, two to the 5 per cent, standard of lead, and one to the 2 per cent. standard. Few samples have yet been taken; but the inspectors will have instructions to take them from time to time in such a way as to test the observance of the rules.

  Six-Mile Cross Loan Fund.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state what progress has been made with the winding-up of the Six-Mile Cross (County Tyrone) Loan Fund, when the receiver was appointed: and if he has collected money sufficient to meet the demands of the debenture holders.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The present receiver was appointed on the 31st January last. His predecessor collected a sum of £37 10s., which is subject to his claim for expenses amounting to £19 6s. 3d. Between the 31st January and 19th instant a further sum of £38 2s. was collected. Legal proceedings are pending in a number of cases. The sums collected are not sufficient to meet the demands of the debenture holders.

  Sergeant Sheridan— M'Goohan's Case.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to
  282
  the lord Lieutenant of Ireland who was the district inspector and head constable in Ballinamore on the night that Sergeant Sheridan committed the outrage for which M'Goohan was imprisoned; where this district inspector is now stationed and what is his record in the force; with how many agrarian trials in Ireland has he been connected; and can he state the grounds on which he was raised to the rank of a district inspector.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The two members of the force referred to are District Inspector Redington and Head Constable Donohoe. The former is now stationed at Granard, County Longford. He joined the Constabulary in February, 1871, and, having passed through the various ranks, was promoted to the rank of district inspector in September, 1897. He was considered eligible in every way for advancement to the superior rank, and was promoted on the grounds of his eligibility. I only know of four trials, all for grave offences, upon which this officer gave evidence.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of removing this inspector elsewhere? We do not want him in Longford.

  United Irish League—Prosecution of Mr. James Lynam.
  MR, J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose advice and at whose instigation the proceeding of having Mr. James Lynam, United Irish League organiser, bound to the peace was taken in the King's Bench Division. Dublin, instead of before a Bench of magistrates in county Longford; what was the cost of this proceeding: who issued the order for its being carried to the High Court; and how many such cases were tried in this way for the past ten years.
  MR. ATKINSON: At my right hon. friend's request, I will reply to this Question. These proceedings were taken against Mr. Lynam by the direction of the Executive Government, acting on the advice of the law officers. The reason for proceeding in the

  283
  Superior Court was that on two previous occasions proceedings to bind to the peace and good behaviour had been taken against Mr. Lynam before Petty Sessions Courts without any decisive result, the Justices being equally divided on both occasions. No application of this kind has been made in the High Court for the last ten years, but several were made before that time. On those precedents the application was grounded. The costs and expenses incurred by the Crown were in all, as far as I can ascertain, £77 5s. 6d.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it the fact that the Lord Chief Justice asked why the law officers were not present?
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If the proceedings had been taken in petty sessions, would not the costs have been about £7?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Warrenpoint Demonstration.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what steps have been taken to bring the Orangemen who fired revolver shots out of the train, at Newry, on 12th July, to justice; (2) will he state what inquiries are made into the characters of members of Orange lodges to whom licences are issued to carry firearms; (3) and why licences are refused to farmers in County Longford.
  MR. MACVEAGH: At the same time, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution adopted by the Newry District Council with reference to the failure of the authorities to make amenable the persons responsible for firing revolvers from trains passing to and from Warren-point, County Down, on the occasion of the Orange demonstration there on 12th July; whether he can state if the authorities have concluded their consideration of the steps necessary for preventing a recurrence of these incidents; and, if so, what precautions will henceforth be taken; and whether he can now state what further proceedings will be taken against the processionists who were
  284
  identified as firing in Newry, on whom revolvers and ammunition were found, and whom the local magistrates discharged.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police exercised the utmost vigilance to detect breaches of the law by persons discharging revolvers from railway trains in motion. Patrols were placed along the line, but no information has been elicited, I regret to say, which would lead to the identification of the guilty parties. This dangerous practice is not confined to one section or party in the North of Ireland. The question as to the precautions to be taken best calculated to prevent a recurrence of the practice is engaging my personal attention in consultation with the Irish Authorities. Two men were identified as having fired shots on the 12th inst, in the public streets. I have already stated that the charge preferred against one of these men for firing with intent to maim was not substantiated. Proceedings are impending against them at Petty Sessions on the 6th August on other counts. The applications of all persons for licences to carry firearms in districts proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act are separately and carefully considered. The persons against whom proceedings are pending had no licences. Sixty-eight licences were granted in County Longford during the past year, and only seven were refused.

  Loans under the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what number of loans have been sanctioned under the Laud Purchase Acts and have not yet been issued, and what is the number of applications for these loans which was received before the 1st January, 1902; why no attention has been paid to the recommendation in paragraph 37 of the Fry Commission Report, that the whole rules and practice in the Land Purchase Department should be reconsidered, with the view of making them more simple, and lessening delays; and will he provide that the Land Commission shall, without legislation, adopt the practice proposed in the Land Purchase Acts Amendment Bill, and separate

  285
  the proof of title to sell from the ascertainment of the claims on the purchase-money, so as to vest holdings agreed to be sold without waiting till the purchase-money is ready to be distributed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The annual Report of the Land Commission brought down to the 31st March last, which was recently presented to Parliament, and will be in the hands of Members in a few days, shows that 40,747 applications for £11,853,218 have been provisionally sanctioned. Of these,. 36,994 loans for £10,809,190 have been issued. Proceedings are pending in 3,753 cases for £3,044.028. Similar information to the earlier date mentioned by the hon. Member is not at the present moment available. But, if he so desires, it will be prepared. The Commissioners from time to time have made such alterations in the practice and procedure as, in the absence of legislation, were within their power, and were deemed advisable by them to make, with a view to facilitating and lessening the costs and delay of proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if national school teachers who were trained during the years 1898–1900, and who have since been appointed to principalships, are entitled to special consideration in the fixing of their salaries, in view of the fact that they entered the training colleges under the old rules in the expectation that they would be paid their class salary subsequently if appointed to principalships.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education as follows:—Teachers who were trained in the year 1898–1899 have received all the privileges they were entitled to under the old rules. In the case of teachers who were candidates for promotion at the annual examinations of 1900, or who, as Queen's scholars, entered training colleges for the year of training in 1899–1900, special consideration
  286
  was given to any promotion in classification to which they would have been entitled when fixing their future incomes from the State.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BKYCE: Can the Leader of the House now say what Supply will be put down for Monday and for Report on Tuesday; and whether, between now and the adjournment for the recess, he proposes to make a statement as to the business he will take in the Autumn session? I may also ask when the House will meet in the Autumn.
  MR. HUMPHREYS - OWES: Will the discussion on the Education Bill be continued beyond 5.30 p.m. tomorrow?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not want the House to sit much after 5.30 tomorrow, but if Clause 7 of the Education Bill is not finished, of course it will sit beyond that. We would rather defer considering what Votes we shall take on Tuesday. On Monday the Army Votes 6, 7, and 8 will be put down for the afternoon sitting, and at the evening sitting, of which, of course, there is only an hour under the Rules, I propose to put down Class I, unless there is any suggestion to the contrary. As regards the Autumn session, I imagine the. House will have a general idea of how business stands now, and when the House re-assembles there will be a Motion on the part of the Government to take the time of the House, and that will be the proper time to make a statement.
  MR. BRYCE: But surely, before the House adjourns, some general indication will be given as to the Bills to be gone on with and the date of re-assembling. It would be convenient to hon. Members generally to have some knowledge on that point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All this will come out on the Motion for the adjournment, which is not likely to be taken sub silentio, probably on Thursday.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked when, in the not unlikely event of the discussion on the seventh

  287
  clause of the Education Bill not being completed at a reasonable hour tomorrow, the consideration of the Bill would be resumed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to say now. I shall endeavour to find further time if I can.

  POINT OF PRACTICE—DISCUSSION OF REPORT ON MR. M'HUGH'S IMPRISON MENT.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask your opinion, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of practice and procedure? In the "Votes and Proceedings" of the House there appears this morning this entry—
  "Imprisonment of a Member—Report from the Select Committee, with minutes of evidence Mild an appendix, brought up and read; Report to lie on the Table and to be printed."
  I suppose what occurred was that this Report was handed in at the Table informally under the new procedure, and not brought in as in former times from the Bar by a Member walking up the floor of the House. But my point is this. I apprehend that this is a matter of privilege, and it will, of course, be impossible to discuss the Report of this Committee until the Report and the evidence are printed and circulated; but I raise the question immediately so as to safeguard my right to raise the question of privilege the moment the Papers are circulated. I have to ask—Will it be competent for me, on the first day the Papers are circulated, to raise the question as a matter of privilege of the consideration of this Report?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was good enough to mention this point to me yesterday, and I have looked into the precedents and have come to the conclusion that the practice is not to treat questions concerning the Report of a Committee which has been asked to report on a question of privilege, and to whose Report objections are raised, as a matter of privilege. There are two precedents, not very recent cases, but the two most recent. They are the case of Mr. Dwyer Gray in 1882, and that of Mr. Sheehy in 1888. In both, these eases a Committee was appointed. In both the point was one of breach of
  288
  privilege. The Committee reported, and on both those cases there was a desire on the part of some Members to discuss the Report. In neither case was it raised as a matter of privilege. In those cases two Leaders of the House of great experience—Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. W. H. Smith—were interrogated by two other Gentlemen who were also consider able authorities on the practice of the House—Mr. Sexton in the one case, and Mr. Childers in the other. In neither case was the matter treated as a matter of privilege, but the Leader of the House was asked to give priority to a Motion dealing with the Report. In the case of Mr. Gray Mr. Gladstone refused to do it, and no attempt was made to treat it as a matter of privilege. In the other case—the case of Mr. Sheehy—the late Mr. W. H. Smith declined to make any Motion himself, but he said he would, put down the subject matter, the Report of the Committee, for consideration by the House at an early day, giving any I Member who desired to discuss it the opportunity for making a Motion. It was not treated as a matter of privilege at all. This present case does not, therefore, in my opinion, raise a matter of privilege, and the hon. Member cannot discuss the Report except by the assistance of the Leader of the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: On the question of privilege I will say nothing more, but I should like to explain that in referring to the precedents of Mr. Gray and Mr. Sheehy I found that the discussions appeared in Hansard under the heading of "Privilege," and they were brought forward at the commencement of business at the time when privilege can be discussed. Passing from that, I will ask the Prime Minister whether he, following the precedent set by Mr. Smith, will put down the Report for consideration on some day before the holidays, when a Motion can be moved and the subject discussed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be sorry to give a favourable answer to that question without more consideration than I have been able to give to it. I am not aware that there are any particular circumstances in the case that require the time of the House for

  289
  their discussion, but in any case it could not be done before we part for the holidays.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: My case is founded on precedent. In the case of Mr. Sheeby, when the Committee reported an appeal was made to the Leader of the House at the time, to which he responded by setting down a notice the very next day. I hope the present Leader of the House will not depart from that precedent.
  MR. A. J. BALEOUR: I shall be glad to examine the precedents set by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. W. H. Smith in connection with the question of privilege. I did make myself acquainted with the subject generally, but the case of Mr. Sheehy has passed out of my mind. I do not know whether it resembles the present case.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: There is, of course, more urgency in the present case, inasmuch as the Member concerned is suffering imprisonment, and the House of Commons, if it disagrees with the Report of the Committee, can put an end to that imprisonment. That makes the case urgent.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 290.]

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT(No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No, 317.]
  Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 317.]
  Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 289.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS V.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for sundry colonial services, including a grant in aid for the sugar industry in the West Indian Colonies."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J, CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): It will probably be convenient for me to say a few words upon this Vote, which is proposed in accordance with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing his Budget, when he said a grant in aid would be necessary to enable the sugar industry in our West Indian Colonies to tide over the interval which must elapse before the Convention signed at Brussels comes into force. The Committee will forgive me for saying that the condition of the West Indian Colonies has been a matter of most serious consideration and anxiety to me ever since I came into my present office. In that time the condition of those islands has not been in any sense satisfactory, and at one time I was certainly under the greatest apprehension that we might have these islands thrown on our hands, and that the taxpayers of this country might be called upon to intervene with a very considerable subvention in order to prevent them relapsing into barbarism. In view of this state of things, when I came into office a Royal Commission was appointed of which Sir H. Norman was Chairman, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland and Sir D. Barbour were members. A more competent and impartial Commission it would be impossible to secure. The Commission visited the West Indies in 1896–97, and made a most careful examination of the condition of the islands, altogether spending four months

    291
    there, and they entirely confirmed the worst impressions which I have derived from the despatches of the governors as to the condition of the islands. They attributed the almost universal depression mainly to the failure of the sugar industry, and that in the unanimous opinion of the Commission was due almost entirely to the operation of sugar bounties. I should say that the Commission added in reference to the bounty system that any advantage that was pained in this country by the creation of an artificial lowness in the price of sugar was dearly purchased by the injury the system was doing to the West Indies. They further reported that, in their opinion the only complete remedy was the restoration of the sugar industry to something like its former prosperity, and that the main object of the Government should therefore be by all reasonable and proper means to secure the abolition of these bounties, which had pressed so heavily on the industry for such a considerable period. They made, however, in addition some extremely valuable suggestions as to partial remedies that might be found for the depression that existed, and I think I may say that all these suggestions, without exception, have been adopted—I am happy to say with considerable result.
    Of course, I am giving general deductions from the Report, but it will be understood that the condition of things varies materially in the different islands, and even at the time the Commission reported certain colonies which gave greater promise and had commerce and industry not enjoyed by others. In the case of colonies more favourably situated a good deal has been done and the situation has considerably improved. That is the case of Jamaica, which at one time was practically bankrupt, with a very heavy deficit. We have at last in the present year secured an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure, and that has been attained only by sinking expenditure in a way that I confess I did not like to carry out, for undoubtedly the expenditure in itself and on its merits was advantageous. But by economies and by some increase in revenue we have been enabled to establish a balance. We have also, following a suggestion of the
    292
    Commission, established a direct service for the carriage of fruit from Jamaica, with a result that has been, on the whole, satisfactory. I do not think that up to the present time there has been any profit to the contractors, and perhaps it will involve a loss; but there has been a not unsatisfactory commencement of a new trade which it is hoped may have enormous development, and already a weekly has been substituted for a fortnightly service, and the character of the ships employed has been very much improved. A large tourist traffic has I also started, and I trust the trade thus commenced will increase to the advantage of Jamaica and the other colonies. Trinidad is in an exceptional position in that it is in possession of a resource not present in other islands. Trinidad possesses that extraordinary natural phenomenon, the pitch lake, the supply from which is well-nigh inexhaustible. There is a strong demand for the product in the United States, and a demand is growing up in this country. Coal also has been found on the island. I cannot at present say what is the quality and cost of production, but I think we may count upon its doing something to improve the condition, and I think we may say that Trinidad may be regarded as in a favourable condition. St. Lucia, one of the poorer and less fortunately situated islands, has been rescued from bankruptcy by the fact that it has become an important naval station, and. of course, considerable Imperial expenditure goes on in the island. Dominica, among the smaller islands, I may say, is prospering. It is one of the most beautiful and productive. It has a lovely climate, is most picturesque, and has many attractions for tourists. A great number of products are produced there, so that we now have a considerable surplus between the revenue and the expenditure. I should say that here also we are indebted to the Commission for their suggestions, and that, in accordance with them, a considerable sum of: money has been expended in improving the communications, which were very backward; and that cause has contributed to the possibility of disposing of the Crown lands to which I have referred.

    293
    British Guiana is also in rather an exceptional position. It largely depends on sugar, although in British Guiana and Trinidad the sugar industry is conducted on the most modern and scientific principles. There has been a great deal of capital invested, and the machinery, I believe, is quite up to date, and as good as any to be found in other parts of the world. But, in addition to sugar, British Guiana has also a considerable goldfield, or goldfields, which already provide a considerable amount of the metal, and which are likely, I hope, very considerably to be extended. Lately, too, a diamond field has been discovered, not, indeed, anything to compare with the diamond fields of the Transvaal, because it is an alluvial digging, and the diamonds are exceedingly small, but still they are of very considerable commercial value, and I am hopeful that, having got all this and the gold industry, we may induce a very large diversion of capital to British Guiana, and the introduction of many other industries besides the principal one of sugar. I have finished what I have to say of the islands which are least necessitous.
    But I must remind the Committee that, while these other sources of revenue are of the very highest importance, if ever the sugar industry were to fail, even in these more favourably situated places, the islands would be in the greatest possible distress. An enormous number of labourers would be thrown out of employment, and the difficulties of the situation would be very great. Many of the alternative industries of one kind or another which have been suggested, although they are not without their merits, do not employ a large amount of labour. The sugar industry, both sugar farming and the attendance to the machinery for sugar crushing, employ a considerable amount of labour, and, of course, cause the circulation of a large amount of wages. Therefore, even in those islands the continuance of the sugar industry may be said to be an absolute necessity; but still more is that the case in the other islands to which I have to refer. Barbadoes, for instance, at the present moment exports 94 per cent. of its total production in the shape of sugar. Antigua, I think, is over 90, and St. Kitts is 97. St. Vincent, with these other islands, is entirely dependent on sugar,
    294
    and to Montserrat it is of the very greatest importance. If the sugar industry fails in these most necessitous islands we are face to face with a great catastrophe. The whole population would then be thrown out of employment; there would be no revenue, and the ordinary organisation of a civilised administration would have to be provided at the cost of the taxpayers of this country. We should probably be face to face with discontent that might lead to disturbance, and altogether the condition of the islands would be one which would be most deplorable.
    It has been suggested, and the Royal Commission carefully inquired into the matter, that in some of the islands which are worst off, in which the sugar industry appears to have the least prospect of success, a large experiment in the way of peasant proprietors should be made. The Commission, although pointing out the difficulties attending an arrangement of this kind, did give it, to some extent, their countenance, and we have since endeavoured to the best of our ability to secure a considerable amount of settlement upon the land by small proprietors. But what I want to point out, as the Commission found, is that if you establish a peasant proprietary of this kind all that you do for these people is to give them the means of obtaining what is absolutely necessary for their subsistence in the shape of food. But the productions of their industry are not exportable products, and accordingly they have no balance over and above the actual food that is required for their subsistence which can be transmuted into gold or other necessaries, and no balance whatever for the provision of the ordinary administration of the island. Therefore by itself it is no remedy. It is perfectly impossible to look to any considerable extension of peasant proprietary as affording any remedy for the state of things which would occur if the sugar industry were entirely to fail. The object pressed upon us by the Commission was to secure, if possible, the abolition of bounties, and I may say that, until very recently indeed, that object has been accepted and properly promoted as a desirable object by men of all parties and of all opinions—by economists of the strictest kind, as well as by those who may be considered,

    295
    in a special sense, the friends of Free Trade. I take such a well-known case as Lord Farrer. Lord Farrer's orthodoxy in regard to economics will not be denied, I venture to think, by any one who has the benefit of his acquaintance; but Lord Farrer has distinctly said, again and again, that all of us, whatever our views might be on the subject of Free Trade, should equally desire that this artificial interference with Free Trade in the shape of the bounties given by foreign countries should,]f possible, be removed, and that all reasonable arrangements with that object ought to be supported. I know that on one occasion he said that if I could accomplish a result of this kind, I should deserve well of every economist, and that he, for one. heartily wished me God-speed. I say that that was the Universal opinion until very recent times. But I have noticed one or two statements within the last year or so from persons who have gone much further than Mr. Cobden ever went, and much further than even Lord Farrer followed him, and who contend that bounties are in themselves an advantage, and that it is not to our interest to remove them, and in fact, I think they even go so far as to say that we ought to do all we can to maintain them. However, with that small minority, I do not propose to enter into controversy.
    We have endeavoured on many occasions to get rid of bounties, and have always failed until the other day, when at Brussels a satisfactory Convention was signed. The difficulty has always been that foreign countries have not believed, and perhaps have had reason not to believe, that we were in earnest in the steps we were prepared to take. It has always been within our power to obtain the abolition of bounties if we were willing to say that we would prohibit or countervail bounty-fed sugar. We have refused on previous occasions to give that assurance, and, accordingly, the bounties have been continued. In my opinion, we have refused that too long. In my opinion we have made a great mistake, and one result of the delay has been that the evil is now much greater than it was, and much more difficult to deal
    296
    with. In the case of the sugar industry we have allowed this artificial and unfair and unjust competition not only to go on, but to increase both in its extent-and its intensity, until immense injury has already been done to the West Indies; and our great refining trade, if it has not been entirely destroyed, has been very much diminished, and its natural increase, which under ordinary circumstances, would have given employment to-tons of hundreds, if not to hundreds of thousands of people, has been entirely stopped. We, however, have to deal with the situation as we find it, and we have made arrangements which will put a stop to this unjust and unfair system. I do not think it is a popular system even abroad. It has been forced on foreign countries, one may almost say, by the competition between them. It has not been so much with any desire to injure the sugar business of the West Indies that these bounties have been given, but through the competition between the different nations for the sugar trade of the United Kingdom. This artificial competition has led to artificial disturbance of industry. A great excess of beet production has taken place, and in order to get rid of this it has been necessary to bring down prices to a ruinous level, and then the persons concerned have sought compensation in the ever-increasing bounties which foreign Governments have been induced to give them.
    The bounties will come to an end under the Convention, and the different parties to the Convention have agreed to a penal clause so as to make it effective. If any of the parties to the Convention should break it, or should restore the bounties which they have undertaken to abandon, then the penal clause would come into effect, and such countries would be excluded from business in all the markets of the other countries concerned, and the markets of the United Kingdom, therefore, among others. I believe that that will be effective, and that this time, at any rate, I may say, to use the words of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we mean business. I fancy that this is fully understood abroad. It is perfectly understood that we will not again be put off as we have been in the past, and that the agreement which has now been come to by all the principal sugar producers must be carried out both in the spirit and in the letter.

    297
    This is what the industry has asked for. All they have said to us is, "Give us fair play." They asked for nothing more. All they have said is, "Put us in the same petition as other countries and we believe that our natural advantages of climate and soil will enable us to hold our own." The great difficulty which has resulted from the sugar bounties in the past has been not merely that great advantage in competition has been given to our opponents, but that confidence has been so absolutely destroyed, that there has been none of that natural now of new energy and new capital to the West Indian Islands which every country wants if it is to maintain itself at the present lime. We have given the industry all that it has asked for with one exception. We have secured this fair play which. I think, it has a right to demand at the hands of the mother country, and I believe that to that extent we have entirely satisfied its just demand. But they asked that the arrangement made by the Convention should come into force in the year 1902. We failed to secure that. The foreign countries concerned represented that it was necessary for them to make arrangements in view of so great a change in their system, and that they could not ensure the completion of those arrangements before the autumn of 1903. We had to agree, therefore, to the later date, the result of which is that there is another interval of twelve months to be bridged over, a very critical interval, in which the industry is subject to all its previous disadvantages.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It is more than twelve months.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Twelve months over and above what was asked for. The total delay is more than my right hon, friend says, and might extend to two years, including two separate crops. Still, the representatives of the industry themselves were prepared for such a delay; but when they were told that the delay was to be extended over a second crop then it was represented to us on the highest authority—and I am perfectly convinced of the truth of the representation—that they could not possibly last during that period.
    MR. LOUGH: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state his authority?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have thought the hon. Member would have been content to take it from me. The authorities are all the governors of the colonies concerned, the legislative authorities of the colonies, and the representatives of the industry, and if I wanted to go beyond that I would go back a j-ear or two to the Report of the Royal Commission. They all point to the same conclusion. At the present moment the advantage given by the bounties to other sugar, as opposed to West Indian sugar, is probably not less than £5 a ton; and at the same time the enormous over production lowers the price everywhere. It is, therefore, impossible for any ordinary sugar producers to sell sugar at the present moment without a loss. I have seen the balance sheets of some of the larger companies, but they are, owing to the fact that they employ much better machinery than the small companies, in a much better position than the smaller companies. When you come to such small islands as the Barbadoes, Antigua, and St. Kitt's, I do not hesitate to say that there is not a single estate which has not made a loss this year, and which will not make a greater loss next year. What is the natural result? It is that all these estates must be closed up unless we come to some extent to their assistance. Without some assistance of that kind the merchants and the banks have refused to make their usual financial loans on the coming produce. And it has been brought to my consideration by the Convention signed at Brussels that in a great number of islands the majority of the estates would be absolutely destroyed, or that these estates would have to be shut up unless some assistance is rendered. If that were done, the evil would not be confined to the single year during which the estates were closed, because the Committee will readily perceive that if an estate is closed the machinery is put in idleness for a period of twelve months, and a very large expenditure would be required in order to restore it to its usual powers of work.

    299
    This, then, is the problem before His Majesty's Government—How are we to secure the continued cultivation of these sugar estates during the comparatively short interval between the present time and the time when the abolition of the bounties comes into force? I do not think I need further dwell upon the fact that if these estates do cease to be cultivated, if the labourers are thrown on their own resources, we shall be face to face with a demand on the British taxpayers to which the demand I am now making would be a mere fleabite. We should have the population of the whole West Indian Islands thrown upon us to support except in the case of those very exceptional colonies which can possibly get on somehow or other by the help of other industries. Well then, we have asked for £250,000. We have asked for the very smallest amount which, in our opinion, would secure the result I have indicated we have in view. We have not asked for a penny more, and it is, I can well understand, probable that we have asked for too little. But in distributing the sum we have not taken into account any idea of compensation for the losses of the planters; any idea of making up the loans to those who can afford these losses. Although I admit that the persons concerned might have something to say on the ground that their condition was brought about by an artificial state of things which we might have earlier prevented we have not taken that argument into account, and we are prepared to treat alike all those producers of sugar, whether they be well to do or poor, whether they are large or small producers, who have met with this misfortune. And we have put this grant, not as compensation to them but as a policy of state, and as the most economical policy for the country to pursue unless we wish to avoid something very like a catastrophe. Having first settled up the lump sum of £250,000, we have divided the islands into two classes—the more necessitous where sugar is the principle industry And where there is an absence of good machinery. To them we have given a much larger proportionate grant than we propose to offer to the less necessitous islands. Having decided
    300
    upon this classification, and having roughly, in our own minds, allotted the amount among the separate islands, we have communicated with the local governors, and the representatives of the industry in this country, as to the method the distribution should take. And we found, as we expected, that the condition of the islands are very different, and the methods of taxation and the circumstances vary in almost every particular. Different methods have been suggested to meet the different cases. We have considered all the suggestions and have finally decided on a plan of distribution with which I will not at this stage trouble the Committee. But if any hon. Member desires information in regard to any particular island I will be ready to give it. We have tried, as far as possible, to avoid anything in the nature of a direct bounty. We have preferred rather to relieve by relaxation of taxation, or by assistance in the shape of loans, or in other ways suited to the conditions and circumstances of the case, and we have made it a condition, in every instance, of any assistance that the estate shall be continued in a state of good cultivation up to the period of the abolition of the bounties.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he hoped the Committee would be content to give a little attention to this extraordinary Estimate. The Colonial Secretary ought to be thanked for his candour, for the Committee had been practically informed that this grant amounted to a countervailing duty.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Nothing of the kind. What I stated was that the advantage of the continental bounties was at least equal to £5 a ton, and assuming the production was 300,000 tons, a countervailing duty would amount to a million and a half.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he did not think-that the bounty given by Germany amounted to more than £2 a ton, instead of the £5 a ton mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. But he was not speaking of the amount of the grant, but of the principle of a grant. The right hon. Gentleman had advocated the principle

    301
    of a countervailing duty, for he had told the Committee that this was a free grant to be given not to a suffering class of the population but to a definite industry. If that were so the right hon. Gentleman would be establishing a new precedent. From the long note of explanation on the Paper, it would be seen that the bounties were only expected to terminate in 1903; but suppose that Russia were to break away from the Brussels Convention Agreement, or that anything happened—as it might easily happen—to upset this fragile arrangement in regard to the abolition of the bounties, in what position would England be? Must they go on giving a grant of £250,000 every year in order to prop up a falling industry? When he asked the right hon. Gentleman who were the authorities whom he had consulted before submitting this Estimate, the right hon. Gentleman fell back on the Report of the Royal Commission. There was no such recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission. He understood that one Member was in favour of a grant, but that the majority was against it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the governors of all the islands had recommended that this step should be taken.
    MR. J CHAMBERLAINsaid that what he had alleged was that the Report of the Royal Commission showed what would happen to the islands if the sugar industry broke down.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he admitted that great distress would occur if the sugar industry broke down. He had read the Report of the Royal Commission very carefully, and there was this one defect in it, that it plunged too much into the question of a single industry. He admitted that the sugar industry in the West Indies was in a very precarious condition; but there were other industries also in a precarious condition; and it was a most serious thing to agree to prop up one declining industry and not another. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had seen the representatives of the sugar trade in this country, and that he had seen the balance sheets of some of those companies whom he was going to subsidise with this £250,000. That sum was not a trifle. He could show the right hon. Gentleman
    302
    the balance sheets of companies in other industries which were equally unfavourable; but was that a reason for giving a grant of this kind? The Committee should remember that this was not the only amount that was proposed to be given to the West Indies this year. We were voting £20,000 this year to provide for the deficits of the various islands, £25,000 to subsidise a steamer, £12,400 to carry out an experiment in regard to botanical research; we had established something in the nature of a Board of Agriculture at a cost of £5,000, and another branch at a cost of £3,550. Although they were granted £65,770 this year in this irregular way, these greedy islands, not satisfied with that, came and asked and obtained the high sum of £250,000 which was embodied in this Estimate. The main ground for this Estimate was that there was a severe crisis to be tided over until these bounties were abolished. But that was not sufficient reason, because, if relief was to come in a year, the people would not allow this industry to languish during the twelve months they had to wait. The argument to which the right hon. Gentleman attached most value was that these bounties were abolished. Then why not let the relief stop there? There were two or throe reasons why this grant should not be made. In the first place, the bounties might not be abolished, and if they were the relief would come of itself. In 1898 the right hon. Gentleman said we had to deal with a temporary crisis, but he was wrong. Though the Committee voted all that was asked and all the Commission recommended, the sugar industry was not put into what the right hon. Gentleman called a good position, and therefore it was not a temporary crisis, but a business condition which everybody understood. The principle of giving the grant was unsound, and formed a bad and dangerous precedent which they ought not to adopt. The evil alleged was that the price of sugar had decreased. But was that an evil? Had not that decrease conferred a vast benefit on the people of this country, and should not that also be taken into account? The decrease in the price of sugar had not been greater than the decrease in the price of many other commodities. There was, for instance tea, which had decreased from 1s. 3d. a lb. in 1885 to 7½d. a lb. last year; in a period of seventeen

    303
    years it had fallen 50 per cent. There was nothing remarkable in the decrease in the price of sugar, except in the way it was proposed to deal with the decrease. Those engaged in the tea industry had suffered very greatly by the decrease in price, but the House resolved riot to interfere. If it once went into these questions it would find the trade of the country involved in difficulties of which it had no conception. The story of the right hon. Gentleman, that the sole cause of this trouble had been the sugar bounties, had not been made good. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned four or five islands which were deeply interested in sugar, and said for these places the remedy had been sufficient. Why not let it rest there? The remaining islands mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were the smallest islands—islands which the advantage would reach last, and he therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to wait a year or two, when he might be able to give as good a report with regard to them as the others. Although the exports of sugar had decreased, exports of other produce had largely increased, and that would show that these islands were taking the only course, from a business point of view, by embarking in other industries. Export of sugar had decreased, but export of cocoa and lime juice had increased, and a valuable trade had grown up. These islands were having recourse to other expedients, and they should be allowed to have fair play rather than that this experiment should be made. He denied that the bounties were responsible for these islands falling into this lamentable condition, and attributed their state to I their not having adopted a good system of cultivation in the past. The Committee should not assume, therefore, that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were conclusive; they could not be certain that when these bounties were abolished the situation would be any better. Beet sugar might still be able to compete equally well, and then there would be no improvement in the situation. He objected strongly to the bolstering up of a particular industry by these means. It was a most dangerous experiment for the House to make, and an experiment that he did not think the
    304
    Committee was justified in making. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £249,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lough..)
    MR. BONAR LAWcontended that all the Committee was being asked to do was to complete the work which had already been begun by the steps taken to abolish the sugar bounties. The hon. Member for West Islington spoke of the great fall in the price of sugar and in the price of tea. The fall in the price of tea was a natural fall, but the state of the sugar trade was due, not to Free Trade, but to principles in direct violation of the principle of Free Trade. The fall in the price of tea was a natural fall, and all that could be done was to give that industry a fair field, and let it fight its way. But with regard to the fall in the price of sugar, was it sensible or was it right, after taking so much trouble to get rid of the sugar bounties, to allow the trade to fall into ruin before the actual abolition of the duties could be carried out? The proposal before the Committee was only that for the year that remained steps should be taken to tide over the difficulty.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the Vote before the Committee was not for a very large amount, and was of a temporary nature. He had not supposed the debate would take so wide a range. His only reason for speaking was that he was on the Royal Commission which inquired into the details of the condition of those islands. He wished to keep as closely as possible to the particular merits of the Vote, and he did not propose to go into the subject of countervailing duties. He was one of those who did not see their way to recommend countervailing duties. He testified to the most kindly spirit in which the Colonial Secretary had received the recommendations of the Commission, and to the encouragement which the Members had received from his attitude and from the extent to which he had adopted their recommendations. He did not think it necessary to discuss counter vailing duties. He reminded the Committee that bounties and countervailing

    305
    duties were not the same tiling. People might differ as to whether countervailing duties wore the best method of getting rid of bounties, but they might be agreed that bounties themselves were very bad. He was inclined to agree with his hon. friend behind him that this country, as a whole, had derived considerable benefit from the sugar bounties given by foreign countries. But, though one might in these circumstances have a good time for a few years, or even for a considerable number of years, it did not rest on a very substantial foundation. But when his hon. friend said that bounties had conferred great benefits on us at home by giving us cheap sugar, he affirmed that bounties had artificially lowered the price. That was putting a very strong card into the hands of the sugar industry of the West Indian islands, for their contention was that they had suffered by the operation of bounties. It was not admitted by everybody, but it was their contention that the bounties had done them a great deal of harm. If it were admitted that bounties had had a great effect on the price of sugar, the West Indian sugar industry could urge with considerable force that the bounties had done them much harm. It did not, of course, follow that one was bound to give them assistance. This grant, on the face of it, was not a grant which appeared in the form which he would wish the Committee to consider a desirable one. It appeared in the form of a grant to a special industry, and he thought it should be treated, as far as possible, as a loan to be repaid. He hoped it was distinctly to be understood that the grant was not permanent, but simply to tide over an interval. Both from the point of view of its being a grant to a special industry, and from the point of view of its being a general measure of relief to these Colonies, it was brought before the Committee as an exceptional and temporary measure. What they had to ask was—was there a case to justify a temporary grant of this kind made in this way? He thought there was a case for it. His hon. friend behind him had laid down a great many general principles, with some of which he cordially agreed. He did not, as a rule, like a grant to a special industry; but the question was not that of the laying down of general principles, but of the
    306
    application of them. His hon. friend had talked of the possibility of other industries being carried on, and had pointed to increases in the export of cocoa which had accompanied the decline in the sugar trade. It must be borne in mind, however, that, though the West Indies were regarded by us, at a distance, as a small group of islands lying near together and existing on much the same terms, some of them were separated from one another by enormous distances; and even in the case of islands lying close together the difference of condition was extraordinary. The hon. Member referred to the growing export of lime-juice; well, Mont Serrat supplied us with lime-juice. A few years ago that island suffered exceptionally from hurricane, and since that time the export of lime-juice from Dominica had increased. He would suggest that that increase was due to the damage caused by hurricanes in Mont Serrat, and to Dominica having got some of the Mont Serrat trade. Referring to Barbadoes he pointed out that cocoa could not be grown there. Ninety-four per cent, of the exports of Barbadoes consisted of sugar, and on this industry depended a dense population of over 1,100 persons to the square mile. If there were a sudden collapse of the sugar industry in such a place, what were we to do? Were we going to offer to the world the spectacle of that crowded population starving and in distress? That it was impossible to do in any island for the government of which we were directly or indirectly responsible. It might be that the population would have to go and the island become derelict, but in the interval we should at any rate have to go to their assistance.
    MR. LOUGH: No such case as my right hon. friend suggests was made out.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that might be so, but at the same time Barbadoes was a place where there might be great destitution, owing to the amount of population that existed. The question really was whether, after all, this grant—which he did not recommend to the Committee as an agreeable or desirable grant, and which should be distinctly regarded as a temporary one—the question was whether it was not. on the

    307
    whole, not only the cheapest, but the most effective way of discharging an obligation which we might, in any case, have to undertake in regard to these islands. It was not as if other things had not been tried. The Commission recommended that other industries should be developed as much as possible. In the case of Barbadoes there was no help for it, but in the case of the other islands the Commission urged that they should as little as possible depend on the sugar industry alone, and that other industries, should be encouraged so that they might have more than one resource. This was being done by the Agricultural Department, which had been established since the Commission reported. One great work of that Department had been to study the possibilities of other industries and then to instruct the population in starting them, and, at the same time, to do all in its power to try and cheapen the production of sugar, just as has been done in the case of beet-root. Another point urged by the Commission was that, to encourage new industries, there must be better means of communication with markets. That had been done also. Better means of communication had been established. He believed the House of Commons voted money for a subsidy to the steam line to Jamaica, which the Commission suggested. The Commission further recommended that, in islands like Barbadoes and Antigua, which really must grow sugar or become derelict, there should be some experiments made by giving assistance in the way of loans to enable central factories and new machinery to be established. This grant was akin to the recommendation of the Commission that something should be done to help the sugar industry to compete on equal terms with other producers through the means of better machinery.
    He would point out what the condition of the sugar industry had been. Those engaged in it were reproached for not having better machinery. It was said they had fallen behind because they neglected their machinery, while in the beetroot sugar industry the best and most modern methods were employed. In these days of scientific invention machinery was always improving and constantly having to be renewed; but in any business the renewals and improvements in machinery required could not
    308
    be effected without credit. The industry must have credit, and to his mind the strongest argument the sugar industry had been able to put forward was that the bounties had interfered with their credit and prevented them from raising the capital which from time to time was necessary to enable them to have the best machinery. All he would say that the West Indians must not be blamed for having been behind the times in regard to machinery and at the same time be told that they ought not to complain of the bounties. Their case was, and it was undoubtedly true, that they had not the credit and had not been able to establish the best machinery except in a few cases. What was the expectation of the sugar industry in the West Indies? It had always been that if the bounties ceased it would again become a flourishing industry. That, of course, was a matter of prophecy. He would say nothing to discourage that expectation, but if his hon. friend challenged it, as he thought he did, all he could urge was that he would at any rate like to see them have a chance. If, as appeared to be the case, the state of these islands, or of the particular islands selected for help, was such that we should have to come to their assistance anyhow, then, be did think that as a temporary measure the cheapest and most effective way of coming to their assistance would be to keep the sugar industry alive as much as possible, by way of loans, until it could get that chance. He called it the most effective way for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of the patient growing weaker and weaker. As long as the patient was alive, supposing the conditions changed, he might recover and become strong again, but if he was allowed to die, whatever might happen afterwards, the patient could not revive. His hon. friend said—"Supposing when bounties disappear it is still found that the sugar industry cannot flourish in the islands? Then undoubtedly the House would have to face a very grave question; but the time had not yet come when he was prepared to say, "Let the sugar industry go." The interval was short. The industry urged that they were handicapped by lack of capital, and that the

    309
    bounties had artificially lowered the price of sugar, but that they could compete on equal terms if the bounties disappeared, He was not prepared to say they could not, and he was anxious that they should have the chance. He thought it was justifiable to tide over the interval by a grant of this kind.
    Let any one who felt any qualms about such a Vote consider the problem we should have to face if the sugar industry should go in these islands. Some islands were safe already, and others might be come so by the development of other industries, but in some, such as Barbados, the problem we should have to face would be really—What principle was to be pursued in the case of a Crown colony which was unable to pay its way? That would be a most serious problem, and he was not anxious that the House of Commons should be brought face to face with it. If ever they were, they would be exceedingly sorry that the sugar industry had disappeared. He would ask the Committee to bear in mind that we had really very great obligations towards these islands. The population in them was our own creation, and there had been times when this country took great wealth out of those islands. One of the hardships had been that as fast as wealth was made there it was always taken out of them. If it was proved that it was impossible that they should have a nourishing industry, we should have to break the fall as much as possible, and we should have to come to their assistance with such relief as was possible. But for the time being, seeing that the abolition of the bounties was apparently imminent, and seeing that if the sugar industry disappeared in the interval the House would certainly be called upon, to vote money which they could not in honour refuse, he thought, on the whole, that a temporary grant of this kind, the method which the Government had chosen, was not only the cheapest method but also afforded the best chance of avoiding grants of a similar kind in the future—grants which, he thought, were most undesirable.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that by disregarding all the circumstances and facts of the case it was easy to suggest that no attention should be paid to the claim
    310
    made by these islands on the liberality of Parliament. Everybody who was in any degree acquainted with the West Indies knew perfectly well that while the industries so wisely promoted by the Secretary of State would be a certain advantage, they would not, to any considerable extent, provide the employment afforded by the sugar industry. The cultivation of bananas would not give employment to one person in twenty as compared with the sugar industry, while the production of cocoa, although novel and valuable, would give employment to a very small number. It was alleged that the West Indian planters had shown want of enterprise in not providing the most modern and scientific machinery. It was absurd to generalise in such a case as this. Some islands were extremely poor and utterly unable to find the necessary capital which the purchase of modern machinery would require. But that was not the case in all the islands. At the beginning of last year in Trinidad he saw capital being employed most liberally. There was an estate with 37,000 acres of cane, and sixty miles of steam tramways running through it. It could not be said that that evidenced a want of liberality in the expenditure of capital, and yet every ton of sugar produced on that estate represented a loss of £2. In the most prosperous of the West Indian Islands large estates were at present being sold because the owners could not carry them on in the face of unfair competition. No doubt sugar production was a precarious industry. So were all industries that were carried on under keen competition, but it was not precarious when conducted under fair conditions, and the West Indian producers were not compelled to fight the European producers with their hands tied. It must be well-known to the hon. Member that one of the chief reasons for the great fall in the price of tea in India and Ceylon was the large increase in the production, and therefore it was inevitable that the price should fall. The hon. Member alluded to the wants of Ireland, but he thought they did recognise in the House of Commons the wants of Ireland. [An IRISH MEMBER: How?] What about light railways. [An IRISH MEMBER: That is our own

    311
    money.] He could not help it if hon. Members opposite were ungrateful for the assistance extended to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had defended this Vote upon grounds which were uncontrovertible because it gave one year or one and a half year's respite to the county system. He thought this was a wise measure to take on the part of this House. He wished he could think that the sum was sufficient, or that it would be effective. The Brussels Convention for the abolition of sugar bounties was signed by the Powers on 5th March, 1902. But the abolition was not to come into force until September, 1903. As the West Indian Islands reap their sugar crop between February and June, this would mean that they had to stand a loss of £2 per ton of sugar on two crops, and the loss in British Guiana would be much the same as the crop reaped there between September, 1901, and June, 1902, which showed a heavy loss, and there would be a further loss on the September, 1902, to June, 1903, crop. The amount of the grant was £250,000, which was equivalent to £1 per ton on the sugar crop of the West Indies, where as the loss on each crop would be at least £2 per ton, and if this grant was not given again next Budget, the figures would roughly work out as follows:—£2 per ton loss on two crops of 250,000 tons would mean £1,000,000, and the West Indies were to be recouped for this loss by a Vote of £250,000. This was most unfair. It was the wish of the West Indies that the Brussels Convention should have come into force at once, but the delay which was insisted on by the beet industry enabled them to ensure the West Indies losing £1,000,000 sterling. With this millstone hanging round the neck of the West Indies cane industry they were to start in September, 1903, to compete with beet. As the British Government allowed the delay till September, 1903, they ought to give besides the grant of £250,000 this year another grant next year of at least £250,000. Last year Burnley's estates producing 8,049 tons, and Cumming's estates producing 5,780 tons of sugar had to be sold, find this year Turnbull's estates were for sale producing 7,300 tons. All these were in Trinidad alone.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: How much were they sold for?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid he did not know, but he was quite sure they were sold at a heavy loss, having regard to the investments of the owners. He ventured to think that this £250,000 distributed amongst a great many owners would be insufficient to maintain this industry until the time came when it might hope to compete on equal terms with the beetroot sugar of Europe. As hon. Members were aware, the Cartel system was in full force, and this Committee ought not to be indifferent to the consideration of proposals calculated to be eminently beneficial to trade. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had earned the gratitude, not only of the British colonists, but also of the people of this country, by the satisfactory treatment he had brought to bear upon Colonial policy, for he had welded together the Empire in closer and more affectionate bonds than they had ever known before. The Colonial Secretary had risen superior to such selfish considerations as had been put before the House. Insufficient as he feared this I grant was, he hoped that it would, to some extent, preserve an industry which was most valuable to this country.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the speech of the right hon. Baronet was an instance of the great danger there was in granting these doles. His speech was mainly devoted to explaining that, because they had given £250,000 they had established the principle that they ought always to give and that this sum was not nearly enough for the clients which he so ably represented. The practical Question before the House appeared to him to be whether they should give this £250,000 to the West Indies or not. What were the West Indies? They had been a curse to England ever since they got them. For a long while there was slavery there, and people made an enormous fortune by it. They were then called upon to pay these people large indemnities for freeing those slaves. These men, instead of devoting their money to the development of their estates, had taken it elsewhere, and things had gone on from bad to worse. He

    313
    could not remember a single period of experience when he had not heard of the unfortunate West Indian owner, and he had not the slightest sympathy for him, for these owners were absentees and were exceedingly stupid men. They did not keep pace with the times before the bounties were given and did not renew their machinery in accordance with modern inventions. Consequently the effect of the large increase in the production of sugar from other portions of the world had been that the West Indian planters had to compete with a reduction in the cost of production by one half of what it was before. They would have made much more money if they had simply spent what was requisite in the matter of machinery. It was not only the beet sugar, but the cane sugar with which they had to compete which had been produced under better conditions and with better machinery. Was the right hon. Gentleman not, aware that sugar was produced elsewhere even within British Colonies. Sugar was produced in India and in the Mauritius. Was it fair to give subsidies to the West Indies and not to the Mauritius and India? The whole system was radically and utterly wrong. The Colonial Secretary had said that it would be a good speculation for us to do this, because otherwise the West Indies would go from bad to worse, and they would not be able to produce enough to maintain themselves. He did not think we had any call by nature or anything else to maintain the governments of the West Indies. The fact was that there was a sugar aristocracy in the West Indies, and whenever money was to be obtained we heard these complaints. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the case of Barbadoes, said that the sugar industry was the only industry there, and that if it did not continue the whole of the blacks would starve. If the right hon. Gentleman would inquire he would find that Barbadoea was prosperous long after the other islands were not, because the negroes were forced to work for an inadequate wage, and charged an enormous price for a little spot of ground on which they built their houses. Although the wage was very small, there was a truck system by which the negroes
    314
    were obliged to spend it in a shop owned by the sugar planter—where they paid a very high price for what they wanted to meet their humble requirements. The Barbadoes negroes went in large numbers to Trinidad, but at Trinidad the planters preferred coolies, and it had been found lately that it was almost impossible for them to get work in Trinidad. On coming back to their own country they had to submit to this small wage. Obviously, so long as that continued, they were dependent upon the sugar industry. If they were allowed to go to another island they would establish negro communities, where they would be able to live and thrive. In Jamaica the negroes were allowed to squat, and they were probably by far the best of the whole population of the tropics. Now we were told that we were to give this money only for two years, and that, if we did not give it, the sugar plantations would be thrown out of cultivation. Had the right hon. Gentleman calculated what were the first charges upon the sugar plantations? The first charges were mortgages, in the second place, there was the interest paid to merchants in England for loans to carry on the sugar estates. We were told five years ago that unless we did something the sugar planters would not be able to go on. We were told that, because of the bounties, they could not carry on. Now we were told that there was an agreement to do away with these bounties, but that unless we advanced money during the thirteen months which would have to elapse before the Convention came into operation, the planters would be obliged to throw up their plantations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North East Manchester spoke of three plantations which had been sold. If they were sold somebody had bought them, and therefore a sugar plantation still had a value. Those who were interested in the trade knew that the bounties would be done away with in thirteen months and they would advance to the planters a sufficient amount of money to enable them to carry on during that period. We would not be out of the wood so far as these gifts wore concerned by simply giving this £250,000. If when the bounties were done away with, we were not prepared to advance considerable sums of money in order to give these people

    315
    roads, machinery, and refineries, he did not think they would be able to compete with, the sugar industries in other parts of the world. The truth was that we were too reckless in regard to the Colonies. What was the good of colonies unless they contributed something to the total products of the empire? If the West India Colonies did not do this let them pass to the United States. The present phase of Imperialism would not survive many of these grants. A few more would convince the country that Imperialism run on this principle—this country paying and colonists profiting— was of no advantage, and the sooner we reduced our area of Empire the better for us. With the Motion to reduce the Vote he could not agree. Let his hon. friend oppose the whole Vote and he would agree with him.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINthought the hon. Gentleman had pushed the argument of the hon. Member for West Islington to its logical conclusion. He would not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman into his interesting remarks upon the Empire, with which he professed to have no sympathy, he only wanted to say that in view of the importance of other matters to be brought before the Committee it would be well to come to a decision on the Vote.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the discussion should not be prolonged, but there were still some observations to be made, which it would be improper to omit, and he did not think they could ask those who had suggestions to make to refrain from doing so. He proposed to say very shortly what he had to say on the matter. The Vote, it would be admitted, raised a very large principle, and it would be very serious if it were to be regarded as a precedent, and if it were to be taken as a precedent for bringing the aid of the finances of this country to distressed colonies he should feel obliged to vote with his hon. friend the Member for West Islington. But as the Vote was represented as being merely a temporary and exceptional remedy, for the purpose of tiding over the particular crisis which would exist until the arrangements made
    316
    under the sugar Bounties Convention came into operation, he could for the reasons stated by his right hon. friend, abstain from meeting it with that opposition which it might otherwise have been his duty to give. He hesitated to be committed to all the principles laid flown by the Colonial Secretary. He thought they should content themselves with saying that this was a grant which could only be defended for temporary reasons, and not for all the further reasons stated by the Colonial Secretary. The best way of improving the agricultural condition of the islands would be to assist in scientific and botanical researches, such as were being carried on under the supervision of Dr. Morris, and so endeavour to retrieve the cultivation of the land from the backward condition into which it had been allowed to fall. It was only of the condition of Jamaica that he could speak from personal observation, as he had recently visited that island, which was in certain respects in a more favoured position than some of the other islands. He regretted the attempt to subsidise the sugar industry of Jamaica, because he believed that, in her own interests, she would do better to throw herself into other lines of agricultural industry. She had large tracts of land which might be utilised for the production of coffee; she had an increasing trade, which might be still further increased, in bananas, and she might develop her trade in oranges and tobacco. The tobacco of Jamaica was extremely good, and he was surprised to find, that the demand for Jamaica cigars was not larger. Cuba had been suffering, as respects sugar production, quite as much as Jamaica, and was nearer to death's door than Jamaica. Yet the best authorities there united in saying that if a sugar factory were well-equipped with new machinery it could make a profit even at the present low price of sugar, and oven against the competition of bounty-aided beet sugar, and a fortiori it would produce sugar still more profitably when the bounties were gone. If that were the case, it clearly suggested, even to those who took up the position of the Colonial Secretary, caution in the granting of subsidies, and he would add that, if subsidies of this kind were to be given at all, they should be given, not in loans to individual planters, but in

    317
    providing central factories where the new machinery could be made available for extracting the sugar at moderate rates. It was a trite saying, but one always apt to be forgotten, that wherever they gave help from the outside they diminished the power of self-help; and he was afraid that the planters in the West Indies had got into the habit of looking too much to outside aid, and not sufficiently relying on their own exertions and enterprise. It had been assumed that, as soon as the bounties ceased, the production of sugar in the West Indies would begin to be remunerative. He hoped it would be so; but he was not at all satisfied on the point. It was a matter open to grave doubt, and that consideration suggested another element of caution in making these grants, which the planters might again come to ask for if their present hopes were not fulfilled. The Committee should remember that sugar was becoming, more perhaps than any other food product, a drug in the markets of the world. New areas of cane production were being opened up in many regions, as, for instance, in the Philippine Isles, which might become large producers if they continued under American rule, and under a good Government the area under cane in Cuba would be enormously increased. He thought it highly probable that in the future the West Indies would have comparatively little access to the American market, and that they would have to look to Europe for a market. He believed himself that the difficulty in the West Indies was very largely a difficulty of labour, not of the quantity of labour—for there was an overflowing negro population—but of the quality. It was a vast and difficult problem. There was a singularly productive soil, a genial climate, and yet these islands, so favoured by nature, seemed to be unable to compete with Germany and the middle States of America, where the beet sugar industry had developed so enormously as in the latter case to become an important factor in American politics. This was usually ascribed to the bounty system, but he thought that the enterprise and skill of the cultivator, and the intelligent assiduity of the labourer, had at least as much to do with the result. It might be largely owing to the comparatively unintelligent and ineffective labour
    318
    to be had in these tropical countries that the industrial crisis had reached its present alarming proportions, and the best hope for the future, in his opinion, lay in endeavouring to improve the quality of the intelligence and the enterprise of the people there rather than in subsidies of this kind. They could not, in the long run, fight against economic laws, and they must not contemplate the possibility that, if these evils should continue, if, after the abolition of the artificial bounty system, it should be found impossible to make sugar production remunerative in the West Indies, the mother country should consent to go on subsidising that industry. They had no right to take taxes from the working classes of this country and apply them to subsidising an industry in another country in defiance of the laws of nature. He, therefore, desired to enter an emphatic caveat on behalf of those who were attached to the principles of Free Trade and self-help against doing anything which could convey the notion that the policy of subsidies was to be regarded as permanent.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid there were one or two misgivings which he felt in regard to the Vote which was about to be given. So far as he understood it, the position of the Colonial Secretary and the Government in regard to the Estimate now before the Committee was that the West Indian Islands had been injured by artificial circumstances—which circumstances were shortly to be removed— and that this money should be voted until the removal of these unfortunate circumstances. It seemed to him that two things ought to be established. The first was that the abolition of the bounties would restore the prosperity of the West Indies, and the second was that the gain to the West Indies would not be purchased at a disproportionate loss to the people of this country. On both those points he felt very grave doubts. He was told that only a small minority of people had doubts as to the abolition of the sugar bounties. It was very true that our sugar refining industry had been injured by the bounties; but we had something in exchange. We had become the jam

    319
    and biscuit makers and confectioners of the world. Even French chocolate was now made in England. There was one whole gallery in the Glasgow Exhibition devoted to the display of these goods and the machinery for making them—all called into being consequent on the cheapness of sugar. Apart from the inestimable value of cheap sugar as a food for the people, it was estimated that the profits from the trade amounted to £3,000,000 sterling. He did not wonder that the French Minister, in reply to an interpolation, said that they were getting tired of paying two-thirds of the British sugar bill. The question of the abolition of the sugar duties was one they would have most carefully to discuss, and he hoped they would have a separate and independent opportunity of looking into it in the most effective and thorough manner. He very much regretted to find himself in opposition to so many of his friends on this subject, but he thought they were entitled to ask on what principle were those grants to be made. There was distress elsewhere than in the West Indies. There was Essex, which had been ruined, or at least greatly injured, because of fiscal measures which had proved a gigantic benefit to the rest of the population. But that applied to the case of the West Indies. They had been injured by fiscal measures which had been taken by other countries, but from which we had received great benefit. But no one would ever suggest that Parliament should give a grant in aid to Essex, and still less that they should alter a fiscal system from which we ourselves had derived benefit and profit. There was great distress in India, too, owing to the famine, and in
    St. Vincent, but no grants were made in those cases by Parliament.
    SIR JAMES FEEGUSSON: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that India had put on a countervailing duty on sugar.
    MR. WINSTON CHUECHILLsaid he was not speaking of grants to India, but of the Indian famine, which was a very different thing. Those were treated as proper matters for human charity; and he objected on principle to doing by legislation what properly belonged to human good feeling and charity. It would be said that this was a narrow and selfish point of view. If it were a personal matter no doubt it might be so considered; but we were the trustees of the taxpayers of the country, and by the system of taxation now in force, by taxes like the sugar tax and the corn tax, which we found to be absolutely necessary to impose because of the height to which expenditure had at present attained—by that system we drew money from the poorest of the poor who walked or crawled about the street, and therefore it was not mean, narrow, or selfish to be close-fisted in dealing with grants of this kind. This was a step that the Committee should hesitate to take in a hurry, or without adequate consideration.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    (4.58.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 337.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

    Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden

    Beresford. LordChas. William

    Chapman, Edward

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bignold, Arthur

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bond, Edward

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Balcarres, Lord

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

    Cranborne, Lord

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G'r'ldW (Leeds

    Carlile, William Walter

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A, Akers-

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Rovds, Clement Molyneux

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, Rt, Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Seely, Maj. J. E B. (Isleof Wight

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

    Flower, Ernest

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Forster, Henry William

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

    Gardner, Ernest

    Maconochie, A. W.

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Spear. John Ward

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

    Max well, W. JH(Dumfriesshire

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

    Middlemore John Throgmorton

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Milvain, Thomas

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stroyan, John

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

    Thornton, Perev M.

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midl'x

    Murray, Rt. Hn. Graham(Bute)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Valentia, Viscount.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Vincent, Col Sir CEH. (Sheffield

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Nicol, Donald Nmian

    Warde, Col. C. E.

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

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

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brights'de

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Houldsworth, Sir wm. Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Hoult, Joseph

    Pryce-Jones. Lt. -Col. Edward

    Wylie, Alexander

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Purvis, Robert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Pym, C. Guy

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Randles, John S.

    Hudson, George Bickersteth.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Renwick, George

    Sir William Walrond and

    Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork. N.E.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Murphy, John

    Ambrose, Robert

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

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

    Bell, Richard

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Blake, Edward

    Gilhooly, James

    Norman, Henry

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    O'Brien James F. X. (Cork)

    Caldwell, James

    Grey. Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry(Mid

    Cameron, Robert

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S)

    Hammond, John

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

    Carew, James Laurence

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

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

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    O Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

    Crean, Eugene

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Malley, William

    Cullinan, J.

    Hope, John Deans Fife, West

    O'Mara, James

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Delany, William

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pea-e, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Law, Hugh-Alex. (Donegal, W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Dillon, John

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Price, Robert John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leamy, Edmund

    Priestley, Arthur

    Doogan, P. C.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Redmond. John E. (Waterford

    Dully, William J.

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dunn, Sir William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Kenna, Regmald

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Roche, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morgan, J, Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Murnagban, George

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    322

    323

    Spencer, Rt Hn. CR (Northants

    Wallace, Robert

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Sullivan, Donal

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Weir, James Galloway

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Mr. Lough and Mr. Labou-chere.

    Toulmin, George

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Tully, Jasper

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

    (5.10.) Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £249,000, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 180.(Division List No. 338)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Hammond, John

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

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Malley. William

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Mara, James

    Bell, Richard

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Blake, Edward

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Caldwell, James

    Hormman, Frederick John

    Price, Robert John

    Cameron, Robert

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Priestley, Arthur

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Joyce Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Leamy, Edmund

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, W.

    Roche, John

    Cullinan, J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sheean, Daniel Daniel

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Delany William

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness sh.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Murnaghan, George

    Toulmin, George

    Dillon, John

    Murphy, John

    Tully, Jasper

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wallace, Robert

    Doogan, P. C.

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

    Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

    Duffy, William J.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flynn, James Christopher

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

    Mr. Lough and Mr. Weir.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Gardon, Sir W. Brampton

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

    NOES.

    Aeland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Flower, Ernest

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

    Forster, Henry William

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Chapman, Edward

    Foster, Sir Michael (London U.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gardner, Ernest

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Collings, Rt. Hon Jesse

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

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

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. Gerald(Leeds)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Goulaing, Edward Alfred

    Ban bury, Frederick George

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

    Gray, Ernest (West Hans)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Beresford, Lord Chas. William

    Dunn, Sir William

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Middx

    Bignold, Arthur

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'ndy.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Elibank, Master of

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Boscawen, Arthur Grimth-

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

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

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Higginbottom, S.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Spear, John Ward

    Hope J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Newnes, Sir George

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Howard, J n. (Kent; Faversham)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Stroyan, John

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Thomas, F. Freeman-Hastings

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

    Pease. J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Tomlinson, Sir wm. Edw. M.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Randles, John S.

    White, Luke (York. E. R.)

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

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Renwick, George

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

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

    Maclver, David (Liverpool)

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

    Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriessh'r)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Milvain, Thomas

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (I. of W.)

    More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Mount, William Arthur

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Mr. Anstrnther.

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

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

    Mr. J. CHAMBERLIAN claimed, "That the original Question be now put."
    (5.23.) Original Question put accordingly, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the
    year ending on the 31st pay of March, 1903, for sundry colonial services, including a grant in aid for the sugar industry in the West Indian Colonies."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 339)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chapman, Edward

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Balcarres, Lord

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Flower, Ernest

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

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Forster, Henry William

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Foster, Sir Michael(Lord, Univ.

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gernld W. (Leeds

    Colomb, Sir, John Charles Ready

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Cranborne, Lord

    Godson, Sir August Us Frederick

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

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

    Beresford, Lord Chas, William

    Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Bignold, Arthur

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffth-

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sr. John

    Dunn, Sir William

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Elibank, Master of

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A(Glasgow

    Faber, George Denison (York)

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

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Harris, Frederick Levelton

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Mount, William Arthur

    Spear, John Ward

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Newnes, Sir George

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Stroyan, John

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H(Sheffield

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

    Priestley, Arthur

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Purvis, Robert

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Randles, John S.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

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

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Remwick, George

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wrigbtson, Sir Thomas

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Maclver, David (Liverpool)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Middlemore, J no. Throgmorton

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Milvain, Thomas

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

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

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

    Ambrose, Robert

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Bell, Richard

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Mara, James

    Blake, Edward

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

    Caldwell, James

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cameron, Robert

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Price, Robert John

    Carew, James Laurence

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Labouchere, Henry

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Crean, Eugene

    Leamy, Edmund

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Cullinan, J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, John

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lundon, W.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Dillon, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Toulmin, George

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Murnaghan, George

    Tnllv, Jasper

    Doogan, P. C.

    Murphy, John

    Wallace, Robert

    Duffy, William J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley. J. H. (Halifax)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Hammond, John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Mr. Lough and Mr. Weir,

  ARMY (EXCESSES), 1900 1901.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good excesses of Army expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEdid not desire to make any merely carping objections to this Vote, because he quite understood that in the course of a great war, such as we had been going through, it was almost impossible to avoid considerable excesses on both sides of the account. It was very difficult to ascertain the extent of the excess on each side in this case. The Comptroller and Auditor General, in his Report, gave figures showing an excess of over £4,000,000 on the one side and over £3,000,000 on the other. In that Report, which was of a most serious character, the Comptroller and Auditor General, after making every allowance for the difficulties of a great war, called attention to what lie considered were extraordinary failures to get anywhere near such estimates as, in his opinion, ought to have been produced. The most startling case was that of the sale of cast and other animals, for which the estimated receipts were £16,000 for the year, the amount actually received being no less than £402,950. Such a discrepancy, even in a war estimate, was too startling to be passed over without inquiry. The figures given in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, however, did not appear in the Excess Vote as laid before the Committee. He had tried to understand what the Vote really meant by reading the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, with the result that he arrived at quite a different figure, viz., £2,760,000 on the one side, the other being the same as that laid before the Committee.
  The specific matter which he desired to mention, however, was one the consideration of which the Secretary to the Treasury recently stated would be in order on this Vote. The system of military accounts was a very curious one, as the only opportunity the Committee had of considering certain matters of great importance occurred at a period long after the time at which the matter
  330
  would naturally have been debated with interest. Various statements had been made by the Government as to the purchase of guns abroad, in regard to which this Excess Vote was submitted— and the imperfections in these guns. On 19th June, 1900, the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in answer to a Question said—
  "I do not think I ought to say where these guns are being purchased."
  On 6th August, the then Financial Secretary to the War Office made a similar refusal. On 28th February, 1901, the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division of Essex had found out where the guns were being purchased, and had heard something about their imperfection, and the Secretary of State then admitted that they had been purchased in Germany, that some defects had been discovered, and that fourteen had been returned to Woolwich to have fresh axles fitted. On 4th March, the subject was again brought up, and the Secretary of State was asked what opportunity there would be for discussing the matter, which certainly seemed to be as worthy of discussion while it was fresh as any matter which could be considered on the Army Estimates. The reply was that the German guns had been charged to Vote 9 of that financial year. That Vote having been taken eight months previously, it was thought there would be no chance of discussing the matter. The hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division, however, pressed the matter still further, and on 11th March obtained an admission of the fact— which had already become known to him—that eighteen batteries of these guns had been purchased in Germany, the Secretary of State saying in general terms that some defects had been discovered and remedied. On 26th April, the matter was again referred to, as it had been found that not only were the axles defective, but, what was more important, the recoil springs, on which the whole of the quick-firing principle depended, had gone wrong. The Secretary of State then, for the first time, admitted that the recoil springs had been found to be weak, and said that stronger springs would be substituted. On 13th August the real facts were ascertained. The Secretary of the Treasury admitted that Treasury authority in

  331
  1900–01 covered the transfer of sums for clothing and other Votes for the purchase of field-guns in Germany, and it was that transfer which enabled the matter now to be discussed. He did not allege any concealment of facts known to the Government, but he thought they had not until an unusually late period made up their minds out of which Vote to pay for these guns. The important financial bearing of this matter was that the Dawkins Committee recommended that the War Office should have power to incur certain expenditure without the previous sanction of the House of Commons. He wished to point out that that power existed already in the most aggravated form, because if they were to be allowed to transfer money from the clothing and other Votes for the purchase of field guns out of that transfer, surely the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure was affected in a most extraordinary degree. He could not imagine any subject in Committee of Supply more worthy of discussion at a time when discussion would do the most real good. With regard to the whole subject, perhaps he might be allowed to say a word or two as to the necessity for purchasing these guns. This was the very fact which was repeatedly called attention to by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex, and others, who pointed out in this House that we had no quick-firing guns, the only result being that it was stated that something was a quick-firing gun which was not a quick-firing gun, and this want led to the subsequent purchase of these guns in Germany. In a memorandum dated February, 1899, long before the war, the Secretary of State for War said that—
  "All the guns of the Army are being converted to a quick-firing system."
  They all knew that they were not, and this was not what was known to any other Power or military authority as a quick-firing gun. It was a mere makeshift and the matter was twice brought before the House before the war. On the 21st April, and the 21st June, 1899, the hon. and gallant Member for Essex pointed out that we had not got a single quick-firing gun, but no notice was taken of those warnings, and as soon as we became engaged in the war in South Africa we had to purchase these
  332
  guns in a hurry in Germany. Therefore the Government had ample warning, and had had every opportunity of obtaining these guns before the war.
  An excellent quick-firing gun was offered to the War Office from France, but it was refused, and others were also offered and refused. The Government insisted at that time that they had quick-firing guns which they had not. The fact that the Government had refused these guns came out in a curious way, although it was ultimately officially admitted. There was an inquiry made in regard to these guns in the Colony of New South Wales, where Major-General French was asked a question which he declined to answer, and he referred the matter to the Government. He was directed by the Colonial Government to ask the question of the Minister of Defence, then stated that this French gun and others had been refused by the War Office. At the beginning of the war the Commander-in-Chief stated that we possessed the best field gun in Europe, and he certainly misled the present Prime Minister by that statement. This country certainly had not the best field gun, although the Government had been thoroughly warned of this fact over and over again; and yet they went into this war in South Africa without a quick firing gun at all, and they had to purchase them in a hurry in Germany in order to get over the difficulty.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he should like to say a few words upon this subject because, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said, he, had on several occasions put one or two questions to the War Office on the subject of our field artillery. He would commence by saying that in the first winter of the war questions were put to the representative of the War Office with reference to the field artillery, which it was thought was insufficient in number, and not first rate in matériel, but they were told in reply that we had practically the best field gun in Europe. In February, 1899, they asked some questions about the manufacture of quick-firing guns, and they were told that they were being manufactured, and they were informed that the delay in the manufacture of

  333
  quick-firing guns was due to the fact that the War Office desired to secure the best pattern. There were no quick-firing guns in the Army at all then, except the gun which had been rightly described by the right hon. Baronet as an ingenious makeshift invented by the Governor of one of the Australian Colonies. This was not a quick-firing gun, and was not accepted as such by any European Power. They all knew that a French gun had been offered to the War Office, and declined, with the result that we had to go to Germany and purchase eighteen batteries of guns there with the possibility of converting them into quick-firers. It was discovered upon inquiry in the House that there were several defects in these guns, notably in respect to the axles. In March, 1901, in answer to a further question, the Government admitted certain grave defects, and another question, put in April, brought to light the fact that the springs were wrong and had to go to the shop. This showed that the Government made a bad bargain in the purchase of these guns. He should not be inclined to blame the War Office for purchasing guns with defective carriages, but he thought the blame lay in the fact that the Government had to go outside the country to buy guns at all, and he thought this showed that they had not the intellectual equipment alluded to in a question the other day by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Woolwich. He did not know whether it was the Committee of National Defence that was responsible, but he did not think that in this case the fault rested entirely with the War Office. He had never worshipped at their shrine, and he had occasionally ventured to criticise some of the performances which emanated from Pall Mall, but in this case he thought the blame should fall upon the general system which did not provide for the intellectual development which was necessary, and they appeared to let things slide. He was glad that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had seized this opportunity of bringing this case before the Committee, and he thought the thanks of the country were due to him for having done so.
  MR. BRODEICK: I rise now to answer the right hon. Baronet and my
  334
  hon. and gallant friend, because I expect that some Members of the Committee will probably wish to address themselves more generally to the question of the Excess Vote. In the first place, I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet as regards this being the first opportunity Parliament has had of reviewing the procedure by which these guns were ordered. What occurred was this. In March, 1900, the very large demands made on our artillery in consequence of the war in South Africa made it necessary to secure a considerable number of guns without delay, and Lord Lansdowne decided that the best possible thing to do in the circumstances and the most rapid provision that could be made at that moment, rapidity being the essence of the matter, was to order these guns in Germany. He thoroughly satisfied himself, and the event proved that he was absolutely correct, that the guns could neither be obtained in Great Britain so quickly, nor could they be obtained of the same quality as the guns which he ordered in Germany; and I will show the Committee that he was entirely justified in that contention. It is perfectly true that it would be impossible to come to Parliament and say, "We are buying guns on the Continent." There are, of course, questions which may arise as to the purchase of weapons during the hostilities, and it was not desirable to provoke a debate at that time. That was the reason why the Financial Secretary declined to give Parliament the information; but, in the following year when the guns were delivered, I undoubtedly suggested that the proper time to discuss their purchase was on the War Office Vote. Although I cannot influence the decision of the Chairman, and I am quite aware that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean is a high authority upon this question, I cannot conceive that any Chairman would rule out of order on the Vote for the Secretary of State the discussion of the decision he might have taken in such a matter of policy as the purchase of guns abroad.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not attack the Government for buying guns abroad, but for their previous neglect in past years, and also upon the defects in the guns purchased abroad.
  MR. BRODRICK: Of course, in time of war orders have to be given. It is impossible for any Secretary of State in time of war to explain the exact orders he is going to give, and nobody occupying the place I have the honour to fill would hesitate when stores: were required to order them when, where, and how he could. With regard to the question of a transfer to pay for guns from one Vote to the other, I do not quite understand my right hon. friend's contention.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: It is not my statement, but the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury in August of last year.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have not the amount before me, but so far as I am; aware the amount provided for guns and carriages in 1900–1 was £1,379,000, and those guns were paid for on that Vote. The excess on that Vote, from the Return given me, is only £12,000, which is not a large amount, and I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is contusing the transfers.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was not responsible for the answer, because; the Question was first asked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs as to whether there had been any transfers to pay for these guns, and that fact was brought out.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will not labour that point, for this reason, that so far as I am Concerned I am not in the least inclined to apologise for these alleged malpractices in respect of a transfer from Vote to Vote, because never before in any previous war has any attempt been made to allocate supplies to particular Votes for the purposes of the Estimates. On all previous occasions the practice has been to take a Vote of £10,000,000.£16,000,000, or £20,000,000 as a Vote of credit, and the war has been carried forward on that Vote, according as demands were made on the Secretary of State. In this war, for the first time, we have made an almost impossible attempt to allocate beforehand to different Votes the principal supplies that would be needed, and so far from being surprised that there may have been
  336
  £3,000,000 of a surplus or deficit, the wonder is that any approximation was found possible at all, when you consider that the war developed in a manner altogether unexpected. Turning to what is far more important, the question of our being properly armed in artillery at home, I have to say that in every respect the purchase of the German guns was justified by the event. The guns were delivered with extreme rapidity and precision, considering all the circumstances. They were all in this country and ready for service, not actually to the date, but far before the time at which they could have been obtained from any other available source of supply. It is perfectly true that they developed certain defects, though not in the shooting of the guns, but those defects having been remedied. I can truly say that there has been no divergent Report that I am aware of on the guns at all. Compared with our existing artillery they are quicker in shooting, better in range, and more accurate in firing. I do not mean to say that we ought to rest content with the guns we have obtained. On the contrary, I put in the Estimates in the year when I came into office a considerable sum in the hope that we might begin the manufacture of field guns during that year. It is difficult to speak on this subject without seeming to attack British enterprise, but having had at the head of the Army for the last eighteen months in Lord Roberts an artilleryman by profession, who had come home from South Africa determined to get the best guns that could be got, and having given with General Brackenbury his own personal attention to this subject, and every manufacturer whom we could rely upon having been asked to assist us with patterns, and every attempt having been made in our own factories to produce guns which would be better than any we now possess, more satisfactory in tire, range, and quickness, we have not yet been able to fix on such gun. We have not yet found a gun which is sufficiently better than the one we now have to warrant our beginning to manufacture. We cannot wait for perfection, but I do believe that in the guns we have recently received we have a gun which is in every respect an improvement on the one which preceded it. My one desire is to develop in this

  337
  country the power of manufacture of this class of ordnance on which we must depend, or may have to depend entirely, for our protection in the case of a European war. At the same time if I cannot get them in this country and can get them elsewhere, the guns must be got. It is so serious a matter. I feel more than I can express the responsibility of properly equipping our artillery, who have throughout this war gained, I think, universal commendation. There have been many cases when guns were lost; there never was a case when the gunners had not fought to a finish. There were cases when the guns were outranged, but the men always served the guns to the best of their ability. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our object and his are the same, and I may assure the Committee that the investment made, and which had to be made in a hurry, was the best investment which could be made in the circumstances, and one of which those who made it have no reason whatever to be ashamed.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONas one of the members of the Public Accounts Committee desired to call attention to a few of the salient points of the Comptroller and Auditor's Report. One of the greatest mistakes that were made by the War Office had been entrusting the equipment of the Yeomanry to outside agencies. This was done because the War Office were so hard passed that they desired assistance outside to gain time, but this was work which ought to have been done by responsible officers of the War Office instead of being passed on to inexperienced and irresponsible though well-meaning persons. As a result of the Yeomanry Committee attempting to find their own transport, the taxpayers of the country had to pay £4,900 to get out of the bargain which the Committee had made with the owners of a ship which they had chartered which was not fitted for the purpose, and the Admiralty had to carry the Yeomanry after all. The general result was that the Yeomanry paid higher prices for articles of their equipment as compared with the Army, and got inferior goods. The worst case of all, perhaps, was that of the Rhodesian Field Horse, which we took over from
  338
  the Chartered Company. For the equipment of 5,400 men of the Rhodesian Horse we paid £1,800,000, which was more than £300 a man. He wondered what the Committee would say if men were recruited in this country at the rate of £300 a man. The force was really for the defence of Rhodesia, and the Chartered Company ought to have paid for it, especially as the Chartered Company owed the country a considerable debt as the successors of the Transvaal in respect of the Jameson Raid. He complained also of the taking over of wagons and oxen at high sums. No judgment had been exercised as to the value of the oxen lost, and the maximum rate had been paid in every case. Oxen that fell down by the way were reckoned as lost and were left where they fell, and then the contractors came along and doctored them up, and gave them a rest, and brought them in again as fresh oxen. Such a thing as that was quite wrong and should not be allowed. Attention was next drawn to the repayments by prisoners at Nooitgedacht, to whom money had been advanced for the purchase of comforts. This was only a small matter. These officers and men received £600, and when they were called upon to repay it they could furnish no account of how it had gone, and the War Office did not get repayment. He did not say they were wrong in surrendering. Prisoners were not entitled to pay, but, unless they surrendered under disgraceful circumstances they always received their arrears, and the result in this case had been that it had been found that the officers and men who had successfully resisted the enemy had received less pay than the men who surrendered, so that there had really been a bonus paid for surrender. This was a bad principle, and it must inevitably lead to grumbling. These cases of maladministration led, first of all, to additional expenses being thrown on the taxpayer; next, to the obtaining of an inferior article, and, worst of all, to the creation of a class favourable to war and receiving profits out of war. He hoped the country would learn the lesson, and that if we were involved in any war in the future such things should not be allowed to recur.
  LORD CHARLES BERES-FORDhoped that the lesson which the country would learn from the war was that there must be some kind of preparation before war was entered upon. It appeared to him the action of the authorities in these matters resembled very much the attempt to put a fire service into a house after it was well alight. He desired to call attention to the amount which had been paid for our guns. In 1898, and since, the attention of the Government was called over and over again to the fact that they had not the proper number of guns for the men voted. The number was estimated at 2·8 guns instead of five guns per 1,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman acted wisely in buying guns from Germany. They were very good guns, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made them out to be better than they were. It was reported that both the recoil springs and the carriages were weak, but, so far as the guns themselves went, they were very good indeed, and he quite concurred in the statement that they were better than we could produce. The Government should take the two services, and secure the "intellectual equipment" they had heard so much about, leaving to this thinking department the duty of making out all the requirements needed before going into war, and this should have been done in 1898. Let us have a smaller navy and a smaller army so long as they were efficient in all their essentials for fighting. A large navy and a large army were no use it they were not efficient. Of course everyone agreed that it was the men that pulled us through in this war, although they had inferior weapons. What made him unhappy was that the right hon. Gentleman, who worked like a Hercules, would fail as certainly as his predecessors had done, unless he had some Department of the War Office to work out the details necessary for the efficiency of the service. He hoped the lesson of the war would be taken to heart. Let the authorities find out what the services are short of, arid that we do not have to pay £1 when we ought to pay 1s. in order to get something
  340
  effective, which was not only not effective but was not there.
  MR. WHITLEYthought there was some reason to complain at the Government bringing on a Vote of this kind at a time which gave less than two hours for its discussion. While it was apparently an innocent Vote, it involved very large sums. He did not object to large excesses having to be balanced in time of war; that was a matter it was impossible to avoid; but that was no reason why an opportunity should not be given for discussion. The amount of the Vote was £100, but the total amount involved was £7,400,000. There was a surplus on various Votes of £4,000,000, and there was a deficit of £3,400,000 to be dealt with, and those were figures which could not be discussed in a few moments. They ought to be carefully examined. With regard to the item for cast and other animals, he wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he could give a clear understanding to the Committee as to the way in which these matters were dealt with in South Africa. There was an enormous sum for cast horses and sale of cattle. It would be interesting to know what became of the cattle captured in such large numbers in South Africa. He had heard that they were at once sold by auction, and that the only bidder was the Cold Storage Company, which afterwards sold the cattle back to the War Office as meat for the troops. He could not conceive a worse system. £290,000 was received for the cattle captured during a short period of the war, and he had endeavoured to discover what price they realised. He had found they were sold for a few pence each and bought in again by the Government as fresh beef at 11d. a pound. He understood also that some cast animals, after compensation had been paid for them, were doctored up by the contractors and put into service again. He considered that in all these cases there had been a great lack of businesslike administration. It was not to be expected that a man, trained as a soldier, should be able to deal with matters of this kind, and he contended that a certain number of business men should be employed to relieve our officers of the purely business part of these matters of supply. He further wished to

  341
  know whether the sum on the Estimates, £27,200, represented all that was recovered from the Cold Storage Company, for their excess charge for meat supplied, because, if his information was correct, another nought ought to be added to those figures before accounts were settled up under that contract. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General showed that hon. Members were not at all satisfied with the way in which this money was spent. Every item purchased was bought at a far higher price than that for which it could be obtained in this country, and though the noble Lord had pleaded the necessity of getting certain things on the spot, laxity of control there had led to tremendous profits being made in South Africa by local contractors, and perhaps that fact accounted for the existence of a war party, who were disappointed that peace should be re established.
  Before he passed from this question, he would call attention to the item of remounts. The noble Lord had a great opportunity of investigating these things, and he hoped he would probe them to the bottom. They were very much disappointed at the way the gross scandal with regard to remounts in Ireland had been hushed up. If no public policy was adopted with regard to these matters, they were bound to occur again in the future. The only way when they were discovered was to deal without mercy with the men who had cheated the taxpayers in a time of stress. Business men should be employed in these matters, and he thought the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for War in employing soldiers would lead to their being employed in the wrong place. He maintained that if the War Office were going to the other extreme, they were walking into a great extension of the serious scandal which had been reported to the House by the Comptroller General. All through his Report the Comptroller General was continuously complaining of the absence of vouchers, and the lax way in which the money had been paid out without receipts being given for it. In one case the Comptroller General challenged the War Office to produce the receipt for a large sum alleged to have been paid, when it was admitted that the money had never been paid. That was a most
  342
  extraordinary system of finance. His hon. friend had drawn attention to an item of £600 written off as a bad debt. Now, according to the information given to him, that £600 was given to the members of the Duke of Cambridge's Own Regiment of Yeomanry, which surrendered at Lindley, on the appeal of the parents of the men who were not satisfied with the food which Mr. Kruger provided for them, and who wanted extra luxuries, or, as they were called in the report, "tobacco and other comforts." If his information was correct, when the regiment returned home the War Office sent in a bill to the fathers of the young men who had joined the Duke of Cambridge's Own Yeomanry for these advances for luxuries, but had been unable to obtain payment of them. Hence the £600 was written off as a bad debt. That was really a most extraordinary aspect of affairs. According to all accounts, the food given to the prisoners by the Boer Government was sufficient for their subsistence. His hon. friend the Member for Norfolk had pointed out a very serious evil. These Yeomen received their pay while they were prisoners, and, in addition, they received extra money for comforts and luxuries, which was not deducted from their pay, as was usual in other cases. Therefore, men who surrendered practically in their first fight were better off than soldiers who had gone through months and years of the campaign. His information might be wrong, and the noble Lord might have some other explanation to give. He thought it was rather an irony that the Committee should be asked to write off £600 advanced to these Yeomanry as a bad debt. The last item to which he wished to draw attention was the sum of £1,800,000 advanced to the Chartered Company. It appeared, from page 230 of the Report of the Comptroller-General, that here again he complained that there were no vouchers for the money spent in raising the Rhodesian contingent. The Comptroller General there drew attention to the fact that the money paid for raising and equipping that contingent was from 50 to 100 per cent, more than had been paid by the War Office for the same articles for the regular Army. He thought it was

  343
  time that some explanation and investigation should be made into this matter at the War Office. This was another instance of the way in which the War Office went off their heads in the days of flurry. The lesson from this Report would be that the next time the War Office had better conduct their own business, because, as in the case of the remounts scandal, shifting it on to other shoulders only meant increased cost, and decreased deficiency. He hoped that never again would they have figures like these laid before the Committee, showing such a scandalous waste of money.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton)said no one would complain of the various points brought forward for discussion, but he objected to the hon. Member who had last spoken reserving to himself the monopoly of honesty, and making—he could not help thinking unintentionally—accusation that in all these transactions there was some dishonesty.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the word he used over and over again was "laxity." He made no accusation of dishonesty.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he was quite willing to accept the hon. Member's explanation. At the same time the contention seemed to be that the contractors were making more than a fair profit. But he did not wish to press the point. With regard to the £600 which had been written off, the hon. Member said it was to go to the prisoners who surrendered at Lindley. It was not to go to those prisoners; it was to go to the whole of the prisoners who were at Nooitgedacht at the time. He supposed the foundation for the hon. Member's supposition was the fact that the money was administered by Colonel Spragge, as he was the senior officer on the spot and in command of the Duke of Cambridge's Own at Lindley. The hon. Member said the prisoners probably had enough food to keep body and soul together. Perhaps they had; but there were many of them who had surrendered in circumstances in which surrender was the only thing possible, and some of
  344
  them were wounded. He did not think they should grudge giving those men some little luxuries in addition to the mealies on which they had to live. Our Consul at Lorenzo Marques was asked to go to Nooitgedacht and distribute the money, but when he arrived he was not allowed to have any communication with the prisoners. He had to hand the money over to the Boers, who kept it in their safe and issued it to Colonel Spragge, telling him it was, a donation from charitable people in England for the purpose of purchasing luxuries like tobacco, and also bootsand clothes. They did not tell him that it was an advance. In these circumstances could Colonel Spragge be blamed if he did not tell the men that they must expect to refund the money when they were released? The statement had been made that men who were prisoners got more than those who were not prisoners. In many cases these men, being prisoners, had money of their own and refused to take any of the grant, preferring that it should be given to those who had nothing. And the whole grant divided up only amounted: to 2s. a man.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was glad to hear the noble Lord's explanation. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman sent in an account to any of these persons to recover the money when, they returned to the country.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he could not answer that Question on the spur of the moment. Until Colonel Spragge was released they did not know the circumstances in which the money was distributed. Of course, the vouchers were not forthcoming, because the bulk of the men did not get anything at all.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the noble Lord could say it was untrue that accounts had been sent by the War Office to these Yeomen or their families.
  LORD STANLEYcould not say definitely. He did not think it was done, and certainly, if they had known the circumstances under which the money was issued, the War Office would not for one moment have thought of asking for its return. The hon. Member for Halifax had brought up the question of equipping

  345
  the Yeomanry from outside sources. He agreed that in the future, if they had to equip a similar force, it would be imperative for them to do the work themselves. But they must not look only to the future. What were the circumstances when the emergency arose? They were sending every single man that they could to South Africa. They were working every factory that they possibly could in order to supply these men. From outside an offer came to raise and equip a certain number of men. That offer came from those whom they believed to have great experience, not, indeed, in equipping for a war, but in the general equipment of Yeomanry. Was it to be wondered at that under these circumstances the Government gave the chance to the outside instead of waiting some months, as they would otherwise have had to do, until their own factories could do the work? He agreed that it was expensive, but they had to consider the time which had been gained; and time gained at that period was of a great deal more value to the country than a number of thousands of pounds.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Not in the case of the ''Lusitania.'
  LORD STANLEYagreed that that was undoubtedly a case in which something was given to outsiders which in future they would know ought not to be so given. But, again, it was done under the impression that time would be gained, and that was the chief thing they had then to consider. With regard to the Rhodesian equipment, it was hardly fair to compare the prices of various articles as had been done. It should be remembered that the articles with which the comparison was made were bought under a contract entered into a year before there was any question of a war, and, therefore, before the exceptional demand for all such articles arose—a demand which under any circumstances would have led to an increase of price. The noble Lord the Member for Woolwich, when he spoke of the War Office being rushed for guns, should not forget that, owing to the outbreak of the war, it became necessary to raise these fifteen batteries immediately, instead of gradually, and, in consequence, recourse had to be had
  346
  to other manufacturers in order to supply the guns and thoroughly equip the batteries.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid his point was that in 1898 the War Office was short of the requisite number of guns per thousand men.
  LORD STANLEYsaid the War Office found they were short, and for that reason raised the fifteen batteries in 1898, which, he thought, brought the proportion up very much to what the noble Lord required. They were told that they ought to learn the lesson of the war. No doubt, and they were trying to learn that lesson, and he believed time would show that the lesson had not been lost upon them. The great lesson—and it was a very difficult one—they had to learn was how they could keep their expenses in time of peace at the lowest possible limit, and yet have such a form of expansion as should enable the Government to put an effective force in the field in time of war. Their whole efforts ought to be directed to having an efficient reserve in men, guns, and stores, so that, although a capital sum might be chargeable against them in time of peace, yet, when war broke out, they should be able to equip a vastly larger Army than their peace requirements necessitated, and that without having to go into the highways and byways as in the past, and to buy in the dearest market. Time would show that the Secretary of State, in the plans at which he was working so hard, was doing that which the Committee and the country desired, viz., making in time of peace preparations for any strain that might have to be borne in the future. As to the local purchases referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax, such purchases must always be expensive. Patriotism did not always go with selling things cheaply, and when there was an increased demand the price was certain to be enhanced. But in this case again, they had to choose between paying high prices and going without something that was essential for the efficiency of the troops, and he did not hesitate to

  347
  say that in future, if similar circumstances arose, similarly high prices would have to be paid.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that while it was the duty of everybody to give to the War Office a chance of doing what it could, and not to press upon it small peccadilloes while in the midst of its reorganisation scheme, yet at the same time certain large deficiencies had been revealed of which the country ought to know. The question of guns had been raised over and over again, but without result until hundreds or thousands of men had been lost in consequence of the weakness of the batteries. The complaint was not that in an emergency guns had been bought in Germany, but that the necessity for rushing into that expenditure had existed in spite of repeated warnings. The Financial Secretary had stated that the raising of the fifteen batteries at the last moment had almost remedied the deficiency. But that was only so far as the Regulars were concerned. The Militia and Volunteers were absolutely without guns, and the policy of the War Office had been to refuse to provide them. He had the privilege of seeing the first battery armed with the spade attachment, and the first of these German guns issued. No one who had seen this quick-firing gun could imagine how it was possible for the War Office representatives to have persuaded the Secretary of State for War that this spade detachment gun was a
  quick-firing gun. Almost every artillery man who had seen these German guns said they were too light in the carriage for the work for which they were required. They might be all right for the flat roads of Germany, but they were not suitable for the rough ground in this country and in South Africa. He was afraid that the whole carriage was too light for the work, and he was very sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that no gun had been found which was better than this one. Were they more than four years behind Germany in the manufacture of guns? They ought to have some good guns in the country, and he hoped more attention would be paid to this subject by the War Office. The troops were now coming home, and it would be established in the near future that it was through no fault of their soldiers and regimental officers that disasters had occurred, but they were due to the want of preparedness for war on the part of the War Office. With regard to the prisoners to which allusion had been made, he did not object to £600 for them, but he hoped that something would be done by the War Office to decentralise a little more in the future.
  Mr. BRODRICKrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  (7.18.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 340.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dewar, Sir TR (Tower Hamlets

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Bull, William James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Arrol, Sir William

  Butcher, John George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Rt Hon J A (Glasgow

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fergusson, Rt Hon Sir J.(Manc'r

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cham berlayne, T (Southampt'n

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chapman, Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Beach, Rt Hon Sir Michael Hicks

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Flannery. Sir Fortescue

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flower, Ernest

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bigwood, James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bond, Edward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Seely, (Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Gretton, John

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Shaw-Stewart M. H. (Renfiew

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh.

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spear, John Ward

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midx.

  Morton. Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Valentia. Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Walker, Col. Wm. Hall

  Higginbottom. S. W.

  Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Bri'htside

  Penn, John

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Jessel, Caption Herbert Merton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Keswick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Randles. John S.

  Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rasche, Major Frederic Carne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Sir William Walrond and

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Asher, Alexander

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Bell, Richard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Brigg, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rea, Russell

  Cameron. Robert,

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. Donegal, W

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  Leamy, Edmund

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Delany, William

  MacNeill. John Gordon Swift

  Toulmin, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Dillon, John

  Moss, Samuel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Edwards, Frank

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'y, Mid

  Major Jameson and

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

  Mr. Warner.

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  (7.28.) Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203 Noes, 63. (Division List No. 341.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Asher, Alexander

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Penn, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Randles, John S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Rea, Russell

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Renwick, George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bignold, Arthur

  Haslett, Sir James Homer

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bigwood, James

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Chamberlain, J. Aust. (Worc'r.

  Keswick, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Chapman, Edward

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lee, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore-

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir Wm. Hart

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Edwards, Frank

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Ellibank, Master of

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

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

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moss, Samuel

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sir William Walrond and

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

  Brigg, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Burns, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Mara, James

  Cameron, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clancy, Jonn Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Price, Robert John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leany, Edmund

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dillon, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murnaghan, George

  Touhnin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Col. John P. Galway, N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Major Jameson and Mr.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Weir.

  It being after half-past Seven of the dock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to lie reported tomorrow; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAM WAYS BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time and passed, without Amendment.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; read the third time and passed, with an Amendment.
  GAS AND WATKR ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered: read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  MR. J.P. FARRELLmoved an Amendment of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for South Fermanagh to extend the operation of the clauses at present limited to two years.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word 'Board' to the word 'in' in line 16."— (Mr. Farrell.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)said he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CLANCYmoved to amend the Clause by adding at the end, "This section shall apply

  355
  to any debt, claim, or demand incurred or become payable at any time since the passing of the principal Act." The Clause provides that the time within which the payment of any debt mentioned in Section 51, Sub-section 7, of the principal Act may be made may be extended by the Local Government Board to two years from the date at which the debt was incurred, or became due, and the object of the Amendment was to make the action of the Clause retrospective. This statutory limitation was really a new one. People had become accustomed to the six years statutory limit, and it would take some time to get accustomed to anything else. He confessed that his principal object in moving the Amendment was to enable County Councils to recover debts which they could not do unless the Clause was retrospective, and he had particularly in mind a case in which the Monaghan County Council was unable to obtain payment of money admittedly due. The sum sought to be recovered was over £1,300, but under the statutory limitation contained in the 7th sub-section only £624 had been declared recoverable by the courts, and that, he submitted, was a great scandal.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 18, at end, to add the words 'This section shall apply to any debt, claim, or demand incurred or become payable at any time since the passing of the principal Act.'—
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in extending the time to two years the Government had doubled the present period of grace, and gone as far as they could without endangering the prospects of the Bill. Moreover, the Amendment was inconsistent with the drafting of the Bill.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he only wanted to make an exception to the general rule in order to meet particular cases of hardship. Surely it was a common thing to put in a proviso at the end of the Clause. It would only apply to two or three places in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)pointed out that in the original Act a period of twenty months was selected,
  356
  but it was found to be inconvenient, and the time was extended. But the Government could not go on extending it indefinitely. The idea was to allow sufficient time to get all the Bills in.
  MR. CLANCY: Might you not insert the words, "or at any time up to the present moment"?
  MR. TULLYpointed out that there was often difficulty in getting lawyers to send in their bills, which were sometimes spread over many years. They were allowed a long period, and why should not the same privilege be extended to ordinary traders?
  MR. CLANCYasked leave to amend his Amendment by adding the words, "After the 1st April, 1902."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he must adhere to his objection, which was mainly a drafting one. The addition of the words would make nonsense of the Clause. He would, however, promise that before the Report stage he would consider whether a case for exception had been made out, and if he came to an affirmative conclusion he would see how it could be met.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that under the circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  MR. WYNDHAMmoved an Amendment to provide that the salary paid to a substitute during the vacation of the medical officer of a workhouse should not establish any claim for superannuation. As a matter of fact, he did not think the section as it stood would give any claim to superannuation, but he proposed to add some words in order to make the meaning perfectly clear.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 3, page 1, line 20, after 'Act' insert 'and for no other purpose.'"
  MR. TULLYsaid he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman

  357
  that the section as it stood would not include any possibility of superannuation for a temporary substitute, but he would like to see words included which would throw the cost of the substitute on the Local Taxation Account.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That point must be raised later on.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TULLYmoved an Amendment with the object of securing that the Government contribution to the salary of the substitute should be paid, not only when the medical officer was absent on leave, but when he was absent through sickness or other circumstances beyond his control, such as being subpoenaed as a witness. Ratepayers were always anxious to keep down expenses, and were consequently sometimes tempted to pursue an unjust policy towards the medical officers, many of whom were very hardly treated; and he believed that if the Government agreed to pay half the cost of the substitute it would become the rule to allow these hard-worked gentlemen four weeks vacation annually. Some of them received salaries which were not even equal to the wages of an ordinary mechanic. Many of them were the sons of Irish traders and farmers who had spent large sums in giving them the necessary education; and certainly when once they qualified and obtained appointments they ought to be treated better than working men were treated. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 24, to leave out from the word 'dispensary' to the word 'under' in line 25."—
  Question proposed, "That the words 'while he is absent' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEthought the Government might agree to this Amendment. It was hardly worth while making two bites of a cherry. There was not a large sum of money involved, and if the Government would concede this he was quite certain it would be accepted as a graceful act by
  358
  the medical profession in Ireland, who were a body deserving of the greatest praise for the way they performed their arduous duties.
  MR. MACARTNEYsympathised with the object of the Amendment. The doctors were not always paid according to the work they did. He hoped the Government would consider the proposal favourably.
  MR. DOOGANsaid it seemed to him that if the doctors were paid for ordinary holidays and had a substitute provided to perform their duties it would only be right and proper that they should receive similar consideration when on sick leave.
  MR. HASLETTsaid he desired to associate himself with the claim made on behalf of the doctors so far as sick leave was concerned. He did not think, however, that the Government should pay for a substitute when a doctor had, under subpoena, to give attendance at Court, because he received a fee for that. If, however, the Chief Secretary could see his way to allow the Government contribution in both cases, he would not object.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid it seemed to him that the proposal in the Bill would not be a popular one in Ireland. If it were possible to exercise very strict supervision over applications for sick leave, of course local bodies would desire very much that half the expense should be defrayed out of the local rate; but it became quite another thing if the local body were to be charged for two doctors at the same time.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not assent to this Amendment. All the arguments used took the form of an appeal for sympathy. The Government felt that it was hard that if a doctor was unable to continue his duties from sickness the whole of the expense should fall on the locality. But if a Government contribution were paid, it would come out of the local taxation account, and would throw a fresh charge upon it. The Local Government account should be safeguarded in such a way that equal benefit would be given to all the different parts of Ireland; or, at any rate,

  359
  the cases of greatest urgency were of the first importance. There could he no guarantee that the view taken by one Board of Guardians that a proper occasion for grant of sick leave had arisen would be at all the view taken by another Board of Guardians. If this Amendment were adopted, one Board might take a genial view of the matter, while another would be less disposed to follow that course. The great weight of the rates at the present moment, and the desirability of finding means of equalising the burden, made him take up the position that further inroads on the local taxation account should not be sanctioned without careful scrutiny.
  MR. TULLY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest that doctor's, whose business is to cure sickness, will get sick on purpose.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLthought the Chief Secretary need not be afraid of the laxity of the Boards of Guardians in this matter throwing an unwarranted charge on the local taxation account. The Boards were subject to the control of the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, he would do a good deal to popularise the Local Government Act.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he greatly sympathised with the Amendment, but at the same time he recognised the reasonableness of what had been said by the Chief Secretary. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman's objection might be met by framing a regulation to provide that the Government contribution would be paid for a period limited to four weeks.
  COLONEL NOLANdid not think the Chief Secretary was disposed to be obstinate in this matter. He hoped that between now and the report stage he would look into the point and endeavour to concede the demand. He did not think the Unions would abuse the power, because the Local Government Board would be able to surcharge them if they did so. He could assure the Committee that the effect of surcharging a couple of Guardians for signing cheques was positively enormous.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid that he supported the Amendment entirely, because he felt that the medical practitioners in Ireland were not at all adequately remunerated for their services.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was not concerned to consider too closely the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This was not an Amendment in relief of medical practitioners, for whom in any case a substitute would have to be paid. This Amendment would give relief to the rates of half the cost of the substitute. No one had more respect than himself for the members of the medical profession, but the Amendment did not concern them at all. What was proposed was a small extension of the Clause, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to agree to it. There was only one argument against it namely, that if this were provided for in the Bill it might lead to fraudulent cases. As the matter stood now, any doctor who sent in a certificate to the Guardians that he was ill and unable to attend to his duties got sick leave. He did not see how it would be the interest of doctors under the proposed provision to increase cases of sick leave at all. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would be able to see their way to accept the Amendment. If the Chief Secretary was not prepared to state that he would consider the proposal between now and the report stage, he thought they ought to have a division.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was sorry to seem obdurate, but he would have to look very closely into the local taxation account in the autumn and see for what it could be allocated, and he would be sorry if, in the course of this Bill, he were, little by little, to place general charges on that account which would interfere with the allocation which he must decide upon.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should still resist the Amendment after hearing the opinions which had been expressed by Irish Members. It was an extraordinary thing that their opinions had so little weight with the

  361
  Chief Secretary. The Boards of Guardians would take care that there was no malingering on the part of the doctors. Although millions were taken from Ireland in excess of her fair share of taxation, the Chief Secretary stood aghast at the idea of taking out of the local taxation account half the fees of the substitutes for medical officers on sick leave. He thought it would be reasonable to allow four weeks in the course of the year.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he would like to make his position clear as to why he could not vote for the Amendment. It seemed to him to cover a great deal more than he was inclined to agree to.
  (9.55.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 342.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, capt. Sir Alex F.

  Flower, Ernest

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Purvis, Robert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Handles, John S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Heath, Arthur doward (Hanley

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bigwood, James

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Round, Right Hon. James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Bull, William James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Kimber, Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Carlile, William Walter

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Spear, John Ward

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (worc'r

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chapman, Edward

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Morrell, George Herbet

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mount, William Artnur

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wright-on, Sir Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Finch, George H.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Sir William Walrond and

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dillon, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Doogan, P. C.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Bell, Richard

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Brigg, John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Edwards, Frank

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Elibank, Master of

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crean, Eugene

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Burns, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Caldwell, James

  Cullinan, J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Carew, James Laurence

  Delany, William

  Gilhooly, James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Hammond, John

  Moss, Samuel

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murnaghan, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Norman, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Tully, Jasper

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Leamy. Edmund

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lousdale, John Brownlee

  O'Malley, William

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Hudderf'ds

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Mara, James

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—SIR

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas Esmonde and

  Mooney, John J.

  Rea, Russell

  Captain Donelan.

  MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept his Amendment, which was —
  "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'vacation; to insert the word 'leave.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had already stated that he was not prepared to accent words which would make a larger demand on the Local Taxation Account.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HAYDENmoved as an Amendment—
  "In page 2, line 4, after the second word 'of,' to insert the words 'and any midwife or trained nurse employed under the Medical Charities (Ireland) Acts, and.'"
  He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ought to give his most favourable consideration to this matter.
  MR. DILLONearnestly pressed the Chief Secretary to accept the Amendment. In the western districts of Ireland, which were very thinly populated, and where the people were very poor, the need of trained nurses and midwives could not be mistaken, and it was utterly beyond the power of the medical officer of the union to give attention to these cases. He was glad that the Local Government Board had issued a sealed order compelling the Boards of Guardians to appoint trained midwives to attend to outdoor cases, but owing to the small salary the guardians were able to offer, the positions were, as a rule, unfilled.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he hoped that the Clause would be allowed to go through in its present form, and in the recess he would consider, with the assistance of the hon. Members for Ireland, the whole question of the charges which ought to be properly placed on the Local Taxation Fund.
  MR. HAYDENsaid that after the favourable consideration which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had given to this question he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 ageed to.
  Clause 4:—
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Mid. Tipperary he begged to move—
  "In page 2, line 21, after the word 'loan,' to insert the words 'or overdraft.'"
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the words proposed were absolutely unnecessary, because an overdraft was really a loan. The one covered the other.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  MR. COGANsaid in a recent case an Urban Council had to make a repayment to the authorities of the

  365
  balance of a loao which they did not require, upon which they had to pay a penalty of £500. The Amendment he desired to move was to do away with the penalties.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 32, at end, to add the words, 'and the Treasury shall not require any such Urban Council to pay any penalty in respect of the redemption of any such loan as aforesaid.'" —(Mr. Cogan.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not quite follow the Amendment. He thought the section itself would meet all hard cases. What the hon. Member meant by penalties he did not know: in fact, he was unable to comprehend the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CLANCYsaid he wished to move, the omission of Clause 6. The Local Government Act of 1898 provided that the police rate should be 8d. in the £ 5 per cent, of which should be deducted by the Corporation and the County Council of Dublin for the cost of collection and offices expenses. There was no difficulty as regarded the 5 per cent, as far as the Corporation was concerned, but a question had arisen between the County Council and the Urban District Councils, the latter claiming the 5 per cent, for the collection of the rate. It was not, however, the Urban District Councils which had to pay the rate, but the County Council; and the 5 per cent, deduction was a sort of insurance fund to safeguard the County Council against any default on the part of the Urban District Councils in paying over the money in time. Some of the Urban District Councils were not able or willling to pay the money when it was due, and consequently the County Council had to borrow the money and pay interest on it. It was not fair that the insurance fund should be diverted. The result would be that if 5 per cent. were given to the Urban District Councils they would be getting it twice over. The
  366
  surrounding counties paid to the cost of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in proportion to the number of lunatics they sent to it, whereas the various parts of the County of Dublin paid according to their valuation, with the result that the rural districts paid £2,000 a year more than they would have to pay on the number of lunatics sent to the Asylum. The same thing happened in the case of the industrial schools, and the general result was that there were a number of inequalities which ought to be redressed. What the Government now proposed was to pick out one inequality, which was supposed to injure the townships, and to leave all others absolutely untouched. The majority of the County Council of Dublin were in favour of the course he was taking, and, indeed, he was taking it at their instance. He did not, however, wish to lay stress on that, but he based his position on the merits of the case. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to view the matter on the merits, and not to take refuge behind mere technicalities. It was the most local of all local matters. It did not concern Ireland as a whole, but only one single; county, and he would ask English and Scottish Members not to take part in the division, but to leave the question to be decided by the Irish representatives. He begged, with some confidence, to move the omission of the Clause.
  *MR. MOONEYsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would resist the Motion of his hon. and learned friend. He was not sure that if he was in the same happy position as his hon. and learned friend he would not have taken up exactly the same position. Still, he thought it would be a most inequitable attitude, though from the point of view of the ratepayers of North Dublin one which could do no harm to them, and might result to their financial benefit. What were the facts? In the whole of the North Dublin district there was not a single urban district. In South County Dublin there were six, having a total valuation of over half the total value of the county. These urban districts had at present to collect the rates, and be at the whole expense incidental to such collection, and the Dublin County

  367
  Council, not by a unanimous vote, but by a majority consisting entirely of the North Dublin Councillors, were now trying to retain in their hands this 5 per cent, which was provided by the original Act for the cost of collection. That is to say that South Dublin was to be at the expense of collecting these rates, and the County Council were to get an extra 5 per cent, for doing nothing. In other words, South County Dublin was to pay 5 per cent, more taxation on their valuation than North County Dublin. This was a glaring anomaly which he was sure was never contemplated by the original Act, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would resist the ingenious, though misleading, arguments of his hon. and learned friend, and retain the Clause in the Bill. The contention of the County Council was that the percentage was not to cover the cost of collection, but to be an insurance. It was, however, never intended to be contemplated in that way.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin made, as was to be expected, an extremely ingenious speech. The hon. and learned Member appealed to the supporters of the Government to trust to local opinion, and to allow the Irish Members to decide the matter. That appeal made a sensible impression on the supporters of the Government, and he feared they might desert him in the division lobby. What then was his relief when he heard the hon. Member for South Dublin urge, if not with equal ingenuity, still, he thought, with greater force, that the Clause should remain as it was. He thought the balance of argument was with the hon. Member for South Dublin. There was a wise maxim which said not to give any reason for a decision. He had studied the case very carefully, but would content himself with giving to the Committee two obiter dicta of persons who were more competent to deal with the case than he was. When the Kilmainhan case was being tried, Mr. Justice Gibson expressed the view
  that the law as it stood inflicted a disability which amounted almost to an injustice on the urban districts, and in the same case the Lord Chief Baron said he would be glad if he had the power to decide that the Urban District Councils were entitled to benefit to the extent of 5 per cent., as they did the work of collection in their own areas. He admitted that during the somewhat chaotic period which followed the Act, which revolutionised local government in Ireland, some charge did fall on the County Council, but he understood that that could not recur.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he was perfectly convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would quote Mr. Justice Gibson and the Lord Chief Baron. So far as those learned judges knew the case, they were perfectly right in what they said. The right hon. Gentleman had shown no reason whatever why the Urban District Councils should have the 5 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was selecting one inequality, and leaving a number of others untouched, to the prejudice of the County Council. He was perfectly satisfied that justice was with the County Council in the matter.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid it appeared to him that the County Council was not treated quite fairly. The demand for the police rate was made on the County Council, and not on the Urban District Councils; and if the Urban District Councils did not collect the full amount the County Council would undoubtedly have to make it up. As a matter of fact, the County Council had to pay the money before the Urban District Councils commenced to collect the rate. He did not think it was fair to hand over 5 per cent, to the Urban District Councils without any adjustment.
  (10.51.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 343.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bell, Richard

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Bigwood, James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Brigg, John

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bull, William James

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G. (Middx

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Butcher, John George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Purvis, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Randles, John S.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Roche, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Chapman, Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

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

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

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r H'mlets

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lough, Thomas

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dillon, John

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Webb, Colonel William George

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Mooney, John J.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Finch, George H.

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry

  Murnaghan, George

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  O'Mara, James

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir William Walrond and

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham. William (Cork, N. E.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh're

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

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Delany, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Moss Samuel

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nanetti, Joseph P.

  Tully, Jasper

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph, (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Mr. Claney and Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'ary, Mid

  Harrington.

  First Resolution agreed to.

  Clause 7:—
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIENsaid he begged to move the omission of Clause 7.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he desired to support the Motion, because the Clause would extend a very vicious principle, and would put an enormous burden on the ratepayers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an explanation of the Clause.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member had fallen into a not unnatural misapprehension. All the Clause did was to say that the schemes were valid no matter what decision might ultimately be arrived at in respect of the remuneration of poor rate collectors.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8:—
  MR. DELANY (said he wished to move the omission of Clause 8, which he thought was unnecessary.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Motion, as the Clause simply proposed to put sanitary officers in rural and urban districts on the same footing in regard to superannuation.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if it were not a fact that, in all cases, the, medical officer of health was also the dispensary doctor.
  MR. TULLYsaid the point was a comparatively small one, as the salary paid to the officers referred to only amounted to.£20 or,£30 a year. He had taken a very active interest in the question of superannuation, and was in favour of all schemes which were reasonable and financially sound. The proposal in the Clause was a reasonable scheme, and he would support it.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid that the dispensary doctor and the medical officer of health were one, and the same person. He thought if they passed the Clause they would only complicate matters and that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to postpone the question with a view to further inquiry.
  MR. HARRINGTONpointed out that the practice in the urban districts was not the same as in the rural districts.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that Section 7 of the Public Health Act of 1891 enabled the local authority when superannuating urban officers to take into account their services and salaries as sanitary officers. It was not necessary to go through all the statutory provisions, but the upshot of them was, that that which was true of an officer in a rural district, was not true of an officer in an urban district. That discrepancy arose merely from the fact that Amendments had been made in Acts dealing with rural districts, and not in Acts dealing with urban districts. He had, therefore, to ask the Committee to pass the Clause.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  MR. CLANCYmoved to omit the first subsection. He said that at present the law was that if an alteration in the wards of an urban district was desired, application was to be made in the first instance to the County Council. There was an appeal from that body to the Local Government Board, and any order made by the Local Government Board must be laid before Parliament for a certain time. The Bill proposed to take away a power from the County Council which it had possessed ever since the Act of 1898 was passed. He contended that the Local Government Board already had too much power over the County Councils, and this Clause, instead of curtailing that power, proposed to increase it. He declined to admit that the Local Government Board would be a better authority in these matters than the County Council, a the latter was on the spot and knew the local circumstances.
  Amendment proposed
  "In page 3, line 27, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid this Clause had been inserted in deference to the view urged by representative deputations of

  373
  the Urban District Councils that the question of the alteration of boundaries could not be dispassionately dealt with by the County Council, as frequently the interests of the county and those of the urban district were antagonistic.
  COLONEL NOLANthought the usual reason for an urban district desiring to extend its boundaries was that it might decrease its taxation, and the County Council ought certainly to have a voice in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the complaint was that the case of the urban district in many cases was not placed before the Local Government Board at all.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that to extend the boundaries of a town simply because in times past it had mismanaged its affairs or incurred a large debt, and thus to make the county pay for the town would be most unfair. Any such attempt would be most strongly resisted by the rural districts, and would lead to much friction and trouble.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Clause was not vital to the Bill, and, as there had been no expression of opinion in favour of the contention of the urban districts, he was prepared to abandon the Clause altogether.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Question, "That Clause, 10 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Clause 11—
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEmoved an Amendment making it compulsory on the Local Government Board to carry out the resolution of the County Council. If the County Council arrived at its decision by so large a majority as was proposed there was no reason why the Local Government Board should have a discretion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 12, to leave out 'may if they think fit,' and insert 'shall.'"—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the Amendment, standing alone, was a very

  374
  difficult one to decide upon. If the Clause was to remain in its present form he would adhere to the word "may." But if there was a general desire on the part of those interested to give the County Council the power to effect this economy, and the necessary safeguards were made very stringent, it would be absurd for the Local Government Board to exercise a discretion. If two-thirds of a County Council voted in favour of such an economy, no Local Government Board could vote against it.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid there was an Amendment on the Paper which, perhaps, would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MACARTNEYhoped the Amendment would not be agreed to, as it was a somewhat dangerous proposal. It was not wise at so early a period in the career of local government in Ireland to give county councillors the opportunity of being less earnest in the execution of their duties. As far as his experience went it would be quite impossible for County Councils effectively to carry out their duties by half-yearly meetings.
  MR. WYNDHAMthought that the majority of County Councils would adhere to quarterly meetings. But there might be cases in which the ideal form of local government was too expensive, and if the duly elected representatives preferred to have a cheaper form, it was for them and not the Local Government Board to decide. Care should be taken to ensure due deliberation and notice, but if those safeguards were provided, there could be no reason for opposing the Amendment. A further provision should be inserted by which the County Councils could revert to quarterly meetings if they subsequently felt they could afford to do so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MURNAGHANthought the District Councils ought to be consulted in this matter. He believed in efficiency before economy, and it was a waste of money not to get the best work. He thought it was too soon to begin to

  375
  overhaul the Local Government Act in Ireland. Practically they were trying to put into a pint measure a quart of fluid. He begged leave to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 19, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'with the consent of the rural district council.'"—(Mr. Murnaghan.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone was an authority upon these matters, and had done a large amount of earnest work. Nevertheless he could not accept this Amendment, which was contrary to the principle laid down in the Clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid that only a year or two ago the Government insisted upon the local bodies increasing the salaries of their officers and under this Clause they were now being asked to compensate those officers for increasing their salaries. It seemed to him that in this proposal there was absolutely no regard for the interests of the ratepayers. He hoped the Chief Secretary would bear in mind that the burden of the local rate was a very serious thing in rural districts as well as in the urban districts. If there was one class in Ireland who were well off, it was the official class.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 31, after the word 'determine,' to leave out to end of sub-section."— (Mr. Murnagham.)
  MR. WYNDHAMthought the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would defeat the purpose he had in view if he attempted to depart from the principle laid down in the Act. He could not, therefore, accept this Amendment.
  MR. J. P. FAREELLthought his hon. friend the Member for Mid Tyrone had good reason for being suspicious with reference to a proposal affecting the officials. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter with the view to protecting the ratepayers and making it beyond their power to still further mulct the ratepayers by retiring allowances and increases of salary it would make the passage of this Act through the House much more easy.
  MR. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary on what ground he was proposing to compensate the officials. In County Kerry, where the duties had been increased, the salaries had gone up from £70 to £130 per annum. Not only did the Government insist upon Kerry, paying for increased work, but they were now suggesting that these officers should have extra compensation. This was a very serious question for the ratepayers.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid this seemed to him to be a very small point, and one which it was not worth affecting the principle of the Bill to gain. He would undertake to look into this matter to see what could be done.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that he Amendment he had to move contained exactly the words of the Treasury regulation. He wanted to obviate legal difficulties upon the question of salaries, and if any loophole at all was left, it might lead to further litigation. His Amendment would make it perfectly clear what amount the compensation would be.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 32, after the word 'to,' to leave out to end of sub-section, and insert the words 'compensation, amounting to one-sixtieth for each complete year during which he shall have acted as such officer from the 1st day of April, 1899, of the amount of the diminution, together with one additional sixtieth of the said amount.'"—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that after the promise he had given in regard to the previous Amendment, it would hardly be consistent to accept this proposal, but he would undertake to look into the matter.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid there were two or three matters standing over for consideration between now and the report stage, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make arrangements in order that they might have some discussion upon them. The value of the compromise which had been arrived at would disappear if they could not have any discussion.
  MR. WYNDHAMthought there would be such an opportunity afforded, and he would do his best to communicate his decision to hon. Gentlemen opposite as soon as possible.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid the Chief Secretary knew exactly how the situation stood, and he ought to leave no stone unturned in order to meet them on these points.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could make-, a long speech upon this subject, for he had all the details with him, but he would undertake to look into the matter.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, but if his point was not met, he should take no responsibility whatever for this Clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  MR. MURNAGHANmoved an Amendment having for its object to prevent a County Council from appointing representatives to attend meetings of the Association of County Councils except with the approval of two-thirds of the whole Council. It seemed to him that the gentlemen attending the meetings should pay their own expenses. He did not think public funds should be used to give them these trips. The meetings of the Association which were held twice a year in Dublin did very little good, while inflicting a charge on the ratepayers. He had been sent up and had his expenses paid, but he did not think he ever did a particle of good by attending the meetings. The poor men in a County Council were not picked out to act as representatives of the Councils, and if the rich men were sent they ought to go at their own expense.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 6, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'if two-thirds of the Whole council approve.'"—(Mr. Murnaghan.)
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsupported the Amendment. The Chief Secretary opposed a former Amendment on the ground
  378
  of economy, and he ought to assent to the present one for the same reason. This was an entirely new thing in Ireland. This Association would fix its meeting for the Punchestown week or the horse show week, and the representatives of the County Councils would come to Dublin and have a good time at the expense, of the ratepayers.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid he could not see why any body of ratepayers should complain of this small expense. When the representatives of County Councils met and exchanged views, suggestions might be made which would result in valuable improvements in matters of administration. The hon. Member for Mid Tyrone said that rich and not poor men would be appointed to represent the Councils. He thought intelligent men would be selected, whether rich or poor.
  COLONEL NOLANopposed the Amendment. The expense of sending representatives might be £30 a year, but a great deal more than that might be saved to the county as the result of the deliberations of the meetings.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clauses 13, 14, and 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16: —
  MR. MURNAGHANmoved as an Amendment—
  "In page 5, line 28, after the word 'auditor' to insert the words ' shall make the surcharge against the members proposing and seconding the payment notwithstanding anything in the principal Act to the contrary, and.'"
  He hoped that the Chief Secretary would seriously consider this matter, as it was of the greatest importance.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he agreed with the hon. Member, because he thought the whole law in regard to the surcharges by auditors was in a very bad state, and the result should be submitted, on appeal, to a judge and a jury.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid that, this question of surcharges was most important, because it had created a great deal of heart-burning.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the object of the hon. Gentleman would not be carried out by the Amendment which he had proposed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTthought that the provisions of the 18th Clause put a very arbitrary power into the hands of the Local Government Board, and that there should be some appeal against their decisions.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid he thought they ought to have an explanation from the Chief Secretary with regard to the Clause. The Local Government Board should not be given power to compel local authorities to provide additional staffs which were not necessary.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid the Clause, if adopted, would upset the whole existing machinery for keeping accounts. The Local Government Board, through their auditors, had now ample power to make suggestions, but that was a very different matter to upsetting the entire existing machinery.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would ask the Committee to retain the Clause. The fact was that Ireland was suffering under great confusion, which did not exist in England, because the Local Government Board in England had the power which it was now proposed to confer on the Local Government Board in Ireland. If the Board made arbitrary use of the clause, their action could be scrutinised on the Estimates.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid the Clause would prevent the County Councils from having recourse to the law; and if it were passed it would be another case of bringing hon. Members from the smoking-room and elsewhere to out-vote the Irish Members.
  MR. CREANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Clause would be injurious if the Local Government Board acted in an unreasonable way; but that was exactly what
  380
  they expected. He did not think that the proposed change would be an improvement, and he would support the omission of the Clause.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he hoped the Chief Secretary would agree to drop the Clause. At the present moment the Local Government Board had certain powers with reference to audit; but the Clause would deprive the local authorities of the right of appeal to the law courts with reference to any action which the Local Government Board might take on the question of audit. That right at present existed, and had been exercised in a way which overthrew the action of the Local Government Board. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman meant it as a joke when he said that if the Local Government Board acted unreasonably, their conduct could be scrutinised on the Estimates. He wondered how often during the last five years had a single hour been devoted to the Vote for the Irish Local Government Board. It went, like the majority of Irish Votes, under the guillotine at the end of the session. There was a very strong view held regarding the Clause, and he would advise the right hon. Gentleman to omit it. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Bill did not meet all the defects in the Local Government Act; and when he returned to the subject next session, he could submit a new Amendment on the question of audit, when there would be adequate time for its discussion. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the Bill, to withdraw the Clause.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he attached very considerable importance to the Clause, and he thought that his hon. and learned friend had exaggerated its effect. He was asked to sacrifice the Clause, but he wished to know whether hon. Members opposite intended to move all the new Clauses on the Paper.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the discussion was of a most exemplary and business like character. The Irish Members had refrained from discussing several points about which they felt very strongly.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would be prepared to abandon the Clause now, and move it another year, if the hon. and learned Member and his friends would not move the new Clauses. He could not consent to sacrifice the Clause in order to proceed to the discussion of the new Clauses.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was, in substance, a fair one. He did not think it would be necessary for all the new Clauses to be moved, although some of them would have to be moved. There was one standing in his own name which he could not agree to waive. They were very uncertain as to what time they would have on the Report stage of the Bill, and were prepared to proceed with its consideration now.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)said it was quite true that the hour was not late as Parliamentary hours went, but they should, remember that the House met at twelve o'clock next day. It was not unusual, in circumstances such as the present, to postpone new Clauses until the Report stage; and he thought the hon. and learned Member would not suffer by that arrangement.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was anxious that the discussion should proceed in an amicable spirit. If the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that on the Report stage he would have a reasonable opportunity of moving his Clause, he would agree to the suggestion.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if the hon. and leaned Member's Clause was to be discussed, the Bill would probably have to stand over until the Autumn. He could, however, give the hon. and learned Member an assurance that a reasonable opportunity for discussion would be given on the Report stage of selected Clauses from the new Clauses.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would agree to postpone the new Clauses on the understanding that they got a fair opportunity for discussion before the Adjournment.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid he would suggest that there should be a conference as to which of the new Clauses should be proceeded with.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he thought they had arrived at an understanding, but at the same time he did not wish that there should be any misunderstanding. He did not think that an undertaking could be given that time would be found for the discussion of the Bill before the adjournment, although, of course, they would endeavour to find time.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not understand why they had been asked to discuss the Bill tonight if it were to be postponed until the Autumn.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had understood that one evening sitting was set apart for the Bill. It would be better to take the Bill up again on Monday after midnight rather than continue the discussion now.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid that if the Bill was to be put off until the Autumn it would be complete waste of time to continue to discuss it, as they would have an entirely new Bill.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that after what had been said by the Chief Secretary, he really thought that an opportunity would be given for further discussion. He would, therefore, agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question, "That Clause 18 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]

  MARINE WORKS (IRELAND) BILL. [SECOND READING.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid that he was extremely surprised that the Government should have brought forward the Bill at such an hour. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Second Reading to be taken. It was a Bill of the greatest importance to the poorest districts in Ireland, and could be discussed on the Committee stage.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid if he could state his views in Committee, and if hon. Members would not raise any technical objection to that course, he would have no objection to the Second Reading being taken.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he hoped that adequate time would be given for the discussion of the Bill in Committee. The Bill could not be allowed to pass without discussion.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was clear that the Bill could not now be discussed, but the Second Reading might be taken without prejudice.
  MR. POWERsaid he had a Motion on the Paper with regard to the Second Reading, but he did not desire to keep hon. Members up to a later hour. Irish Members had, however, a right to protest against Irish business of considerable importance being brought on at the fag end of the session. He would impress on the Chief Secretary to bear in mind that there were many districts in the South of Ireland which required assistance, and he desired to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Motion which he had placed on the Paper.

  MARINE WORKS (IRELAND) [ADVANCES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the increase of the amount that may be advanced and raised under The Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, for enabling the Treasury to make advances for the purpose of Marine Works in Ireland, and the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of certain expenses connected with such works which the General Maintenance Fund is unable to meet, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the execution
  384
  and maintenance of Marine Works in Ireland (King's recommendation signified) this day.—(Mr. Wyndham.)

  SUPPLY [17th JULY.]
  Resolutions reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,381,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Bounty, &c., of the Militia (to a number not exceeding 182,941, including 50,000 Militia Reserve), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding£585,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances of the Imperial Yeomanry in Great Britain, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,287,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Capitation Grants and Miscellaneous Charges of Volunteer Corps, including Pay, etc., of the Permanent Staff, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,025,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of Medical Establishment, and for Medicines, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  Subsequent Resolutions to be further considered Tomorrow.

  PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at five minutes after One o'clock.

ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  1. Mid wives.

  2. Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Licences) (Ireland).

  3. Education Act, 1901 (Renewal).

  4. Aberdeen Accountants Order Confirmation.

  5. Glasgow Corporation (Gas, etc.) Order Confirmation.

  6. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5).

  7. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6).

  8. Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2).

  9. Water Orders Confirmation.

  10. Land Drainage Provisional Order.

  11. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

  12. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).

  13. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10).

  14. Post Office Sites.

  15. Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4).

  16. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Barnes, etc.).

  17. Aberdeen Suburban Tramways Order Confirmation.

  18. New Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes).

  19. Commons Regulation (Sodbury) Provisional Order.

  20. Bristol Corporation.

  21. Medway and Thames Canal.

  22. Barry Railway.

  23. Central London Railway.

  24. Caledonian Railway.

  25. Omagh Urban District Gas.

  26. Salford Corporation.

  27. Southport and Lytham Tramroad.

  28. Great Central and Midland Railways (South Yorkshire Railways).

  29. Midland Railway.

  30. Midland Railway (Steam Vessels).

  31. Norwich Corporation (Electricity, etc.).

  32. Cleethorpes Improvement.

  33. East Worcestershire Water.

  34. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.

  246

  35. Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway (Vesting).

  36. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers).

  37. Hastings Tramways.

  38. Taff Yale Railway.

  39. Consett Water.

  40. Rhondda Urban District Council Tramways.

  41. Felixstowe and Walton Improvement.

  42. London and County Council (Money).

  43. City of London (Spitalfields Market).

  44. West Ham Corporation.

  45. Newport Corporation.

  46. North-Eastern Railway.

  47. London and North-Western Railway.

  48. North Metropolitan Tramways.

  49. Croydon and District Electric Tramways.

  50. Metropolitan Railway.

  51. London County Council (General Powers).

  52. Weardale and Shildon District Water.

  53. Colwyn Bay and Colwyn Urban District Council.

  54. Finchley Urban District Council.

  55. Leicester Corporation.

  56. North and South Shields Electric Railway.

  57. Wrexham District Tramways.

  58. Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways.

  59. London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway.

  60. Whitechapel and Bow Railway.

  61. Clay Cross Railway.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with an Amendment.
  ROSSENDALE VALLEYS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  YORK CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  YARDLEY CHARITY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed. (No. 168.)
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH - WESTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Trade Reports: Annual Series—

No. 2863. Netherlands (Java).

No. 2864. Italy (South Italy).

No. 2865. Italy (Lecce).

No. 2866. France (Senegal).

No. 2867. Egypt (Port Said and Suez).

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Forty-fifth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue, for the year ended 31st March, 1902.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Annual report of proceedings, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875–1899; the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887–1894; the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893; and the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (Section 2, Sub-section 3); for the year 1901.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Statistics of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 and 1900, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1901.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  I. Regulations relating to museums and institutions (from 1st August, 1902 to 31st July, 1903).
  II. General Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors on science and art schools and classes and evening schools, and of examiners in science and art, for the year 1901.

  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES.
  Area, houses, and population, also population classified by ages, condition as to marriage, occupations, birthplaces, and infirmities of — (1) County of Chester; (2) County of Middlesex; (3) County of Glamorgan.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Annual Report of the President, for the year 1901–1902.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  I. Further Regulations relating to (1) The Army Reserve; (2) The Militia.
  II. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure (made under section 70 (1) of the Army Act, 44 and 45 Viet. e. 58).

  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1902, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 26th July, 1902, declaring that Alfred Cook, boy, third class. Royal Gunpower Factory, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Minute, by the Board of Education, sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the counties of (1) Cambridge (fifth minute); (2) Chester (seventh minute); (3) The Isle of Ely (Cambridgeshire) (second minute); (4) Middlesex (sixth minute); (5) East Sussex (seventh minute).
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  PEERS AND THE CORONATION.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees for information as to what arrangements have been made for Peers on Coronation day as regards luncheon.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (the Earl of MOELEY): I have made inquiries, and find that at present no preparation has been made for luncheons in this House after the Coronation ceremony; but I suggest that it might be quite possible for the caterer of the refreshment room to provide a cold luncheon—that is, a buffet luncheon—for any noble Lords who desire it, provided notice is given to him not later than Tuesday next.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I should like to ask if the means of egress from the Abbey to the House of Lords will be the same as was provided in June.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I have no knowledge at all about that.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Can the noble Earl give the comforting assurance that, if noble Lords send in their names, there will be a luncheon in return?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Oh, yes; I think I can assure the noble Earl that the caterer will provide luncheons for those noble Lords who send in their names.

  LICENSING BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Lord Helper.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I have placed an Amendment on the Paper in terms of a proposal which I made at an earlier stage—namely, that before a drunken wife is sent to an inebriates' home as an alternative to the issue of a separation order, the consent of the husband shall be required as well as that of the wife. I do not think it is necessary in any degree to reiterate the arguments which I laid before your Lordships on that occasion. I had rather hoped that the Government would have seen their way to adopt my Amendment, but I understand, from a casual conversation in the corridor, that that is not likely to be the case. In the discussion which took place upon this matter the other day, I think the object of my Amendment was rather misunderstood. My noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy put the objection of the Government in this form, that this Amendment would practically give the husband the power to decide whether his wife should have the option of going to an inebriates' asylum if the Magistrate was willing to send her there Now, that is not my object. My object is this—that when a husband applies to have his home rid of an intolerable nuisance the magistrate shall not be in a position to say, "No, I

  251
  will not give you this relief; I will relegate your wife to an inebriates' asylum, and I hope that she may be restored to you cured." Remember, it is in the power of the magistrate to completely deprive the husband of this remedy. He can, if the husband refuses to concur in the application of the wife for relegation to an inebriates' asylum, say to that | husband, "I will not grant your application. The most that I will do for you is to send your wife to an asylum on condition that you agree to that course." It is perfectly certain, I think, that if the husband had to choose between receiving this drunken curse back into his home or getting rid of her for a limited time, he would choose the latter. The real question at issue between us is one which the House is not qualified to decide. It is whether drunkenness in a woman is curable or not. Mr. Holmes, the well-known Police-court missionary, has written to me privately to say that it is his conviction that women can be cured of habits of intoxication; but in that opinion he is opposed, as I believe, to that vast mass of medical and expert opinions. Therefore, I plead that the; husband shall not be deprived of the judicial separation for which he applies by the wife's being relegated for a short term to an asylum in the hope of a cure which, in my belief—and my belief is worth nothing if it were not supported by expert opinions as a whole—is absolutely illusory. If my words do not accomplish the object which they are intended to secure, let the Government, if they sympathise with the object, adopt words of their own which will do so. It seems to me that by this Clause they are attempting a great and beneficent, work in relieving husbands who are cursed with this infliction in their homes, but unless this sub-section of the Clause is amended as I desire, they may defeat their own object, and the wife may return, after a short period of incarceration in an inebriates' home a greater curse to her husband and her family than ever, because she will feel more secure. I take it for granted—perhaps the noble Lord will give me some indication on this point—that the magistrate, in dealing with a case of this kind, would have some sort of medical opinion to guide him in coming to a decision. If that be
  252
  so, and there is confidence in the medical assessor, surely it is not too much to ask that the husband should have the same right as the wife in giving her consent to her going to an inebriates' asylum; for if the magistrate feels that the woman ought to go to an asylum, and does not think the husband justified in withholding his consent, he has the overwhelming power of refusing the husband any relief at all.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 5, page 2, line 42, after 'consent' to insert 'of the husband, and.'"—(The Earl of Rosebery).
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a few words on this subject, partly because I was myself responsible for the provision in which the noble Earl desires to effect some change. I venture to hope that upon further consideration the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, because it would, I am quite sure, largely render ineffective the object we had in view in opening this alternative course to a magistrate when cases of this kind came before him. Our object was to give a woman who came before the Court under this, the most appalling of all circumstances, with the chance of being cast adrift upon the world from what is frequently a drunken home, she being, as too often happens in these cases, not the only guilty person, a chance, at all events, of reform. I must challenge the noble Earl's opinion that the idea of reform in cases like this is really hopeless. The records of our Police Court Missions and of the homes for inebriate women furnish ample evidence to the contrary. It is true to say that reform is a harder task in the case of women than in the case of men, and that the percentage of cases of women in which a cure is effected is smaller, but to say that the thing cannot be done, and is not being done every day, is really to misapprehend facts that are perfectly well known to those that are in the thick of these cases, and have to deal with them every week of their lives. We have, it is true, been led by the medical experts to understand that the causes which lead to inebriety on the part of women are very much

  253
  more subtle than those which affect men. It is in men ordinarily a matter of mere self-indulgence; but in women there are health questions peculiar to the sex; there is the fact that they too often lack proper food and clothing—wants which the women of the working class suffer more than the men; all these things tend, in spite of efforts to the contrary, to drag women down, and bring them to that condition when such a Clause as this would apply. We desire that the magistrate should have some other choice between dismissing the case altogether and granting at once a separation order, and we believe that if a choice is not left to the magistrate, he will, in a vast number of eases, simply dismiss the case, feeling that it would be too hard lines, as the common phrase goes, to allow the women to drift out into the world homeless. Therefore, we say, that there should be some opportunity given to see what can be effected by kindly treatment, ample food and clothing and rest, and I believe that in a great number of cases the result will be such as to bring back comfort and blessing to the home. But once make it necessary in all cases that the husband's consent should be given, I believe we should defeat our object altogether. The noble Earl has in view a somewhat different class of home and husband from those to which this clause will mainly apply. There are, of course, many cases of perfectly respectable, hard-working, well-to-do husbands who have their homes ruined and degraded by the drunkenness of the wife. But these are the men who would be the very first to desire to try some other mode of reform, short of separation, to bring about peace in the home. The larger number of cases which come before the Police Courts are not of that kind at all. They are homes of the lowest type, drunken probably on both sides; but the drunken woman, being at home, is naturally a greater curse than the drunken husband. When the husband in such a case brings the wife up before the Court, he will not be the sort of man to look into the question quietly, thoughtfully, or hopefully; his desire will be to get rid of the woman altogether. In cases of that kind it surely is desirable to trust to the discretion of the magistrate, who would say, "I will not give a separation order until a chance of reform has been
  254
  given to the woman." I am certain that the experience of those in the Police Courts—missionaries and the rest—dealing with these cases is practically unanimous against allowing the husband to have a discretion in this important matter. I hope that the Clause will be allowed to pass as it stands although I appreciate the noble Earl's desire to help the husband.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Why has the right rev. prelate put in the words "with the consent of the wife? He refuses a discretion to the husband, who is presumably the innocent party; he admits the consent of the wife, who is, on the assumption of the Clause, the guilty and the offending party.
  LORD BELPER: Perhaps I can answer the noble Earl's question. In the first place, I have to say, on behalf of the Government, that I cannot accept the Amendment. The more consideration is given to what the result of the Amendment would be, the more conclusive do the arguments appear against it. It is asked why the words "with the consent of the wife," are inserted. This is a Clause which simply enacts what has been laid down in the Inebriates Act—namely where a woman is an habitual inebriate, and she feels in her more sober moments that there is some chance of saving herself from the position she has got into and restoring herself to ordinary life, she can say that she will enter an asylum. In this Bill we do not go beyond that principle. Having given her consent, she can be detained in the asylum for such period as is likely to bring about a cure. What is proposed is that the magistrate shall have discretion, having heard all the circumstances, to say whether or not there is a chance of the woman being cured. We think that the home ought not to be broken up unless it is absolutely necessary, and that where there is a possibility of reform, the magistrate, instead of making a separation order, shall allow the woman, if she consents—as she could do quite irrespective of this Clause—to go into an inebriates' home. The reason it is necessary to insert the words in this Clause is that in that case the charges for the wife's maintenance in the home

  255
  are obliged to be paid by the husband. In many cases the home may not have been a happy one, and the woman may have been driven to drink by the cruelty and misconduct of her husband. In such a case the husband ought not to be allowed to ask for a separation order, and refuse to allow her to go to a home. He should not have the power of saying, "I will not allow her to go into an inebriates' home even with the chance of being cured." The noble Earl seems to think that is a hardship. But if she is not cured the husband can come back two or three years afterwards and ask for a separation order again, and then the case will be overwhelming, because he can say, "The remedy you suggested has been tried, but has, unfortunately, failed." I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. If it were passed I venture to think that it would have a very serious effect on this Clause and on the good that it would do. Even in cases where the husband is sober and well-conducted, I do not believe that he will lose by not being allowed the power to say "No." The magistrates will consider all the circumstances, and will have the benefit of the opinion of a medical man if they think that necessary. In any case the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: May I be allowed to reply to the Question put to me by the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery)? As I understand the law, the position is this. There are two kinds of place to which inebriate persons can be sent, one being a reformatory and the other a home. If a person is sent to a reformatory it must be for some offence besides drunkenness; in other words, he would be sent there penally, and without his consent. In making use of homes we are not, strictly speaking, acting penally at all. No one can be sent to an inebriates' home without his or her consent, and if we were to enact that this could be done in this case without the wife's consent, we should be departing from the principles on which the Inebriates Act has proceeded. It would be a matter of imprisonment, and that the law does not contemplate.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I know that I can only speak again with the
  256
  indulgence of the House, but the importance of the subject must be my excuse for intervening so often. My point is this. I do object to the consent presumably of the innocent party not being required, and the consent of the person under the influence of drink being required for this purpose. There should at least be equality in this matter, more especially as we have heard so many just enconiums of the way in which the Magistrates do their duty. Will the Government consent to omit the words, "with the consent of the wife"?
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: It is impossible to give equality in this matter, for there is a difference in the position of the husband and wife. The husband remains at large in his home; the wife is not allowed to do so. She is sent into a retreat, and if you do not obtain her consent to enter such a home the detention becomes imprisonment. That would be passing a sentence upon her which it was never contemplated should be passed, and that is the reason why the Government cannot accept the noble Earl's suggestion.
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: It has been said that the Government do not wish to make habitual intoxication in the home a crime. Though it is not a crime in the legal sense, I venture to think that it is one of the most serious crimes in a non-legal sense that can well be committed. Where there is habitual drunkenness the home becomes a perfect hell upon earth, and I do think the Legislature might well consider whether it would not be possible, I will not say to punish the wife, but at all events to do something which should place her in such a position that for some considerable time she might think seriously with regard to her past life, and future improvement. I think that very often it would be found that a woman who would refuse to give her consent when in a state of continued drunkenness would be only too thankful subsequently to discover that she had been taken out of all her misery and placed in a home. In my opinion a great many opportunities of reformation will be lost unless the last suggested Amendment of the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) be accepted.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think there is another argument in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment. If a wife is placed in one of these inebriates' homes the cost of her maintenance then will fall upon the husband; and, therefore, the husband ought to have some voice in her being placed in the home.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: He would have to pay in the event of a separation order being granted.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Certainly; and therefore I think the other argument that the effect of including the consent of the husband would be necessarily to
  Amendment negatived.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I beg to move as an Amendment in Clause 27 (Supply of liquor for consumption off the premises) to strike out the words "except to a member on the premises," from the sentence "Intoxicating liquor shall not be supplied in a club for consumption off the premises, except to a member on the premises." I must apologise for not being in my place to move this Amendment at the Committee stage, and I should not move it at so late a period in the progress of the Bill as the present if I did not regard this as a matter of great importance. These working men's
  258
  throw the woman on her own resources breaks down; for if a husband gets a separation order he has to provide for the maintenance of his wife. The right Rev. Prelate may be quite right as to the possibility of curing a woman suffering from this terrible disease; but, even so, it is only fair and just that the husband should have a voice in deciding whether he will take the course of being separated from his wife, or allow her to be incarcerated for a short term in an inebriates' home.
  On Question—
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-contents, 45.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.) [Teller.]

  Carlisle, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Tweedmouth. L. [Teller.]

  Carrington, E.

  Burghelere, L.

  Welby. L.

  Landerdale, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Morley, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  NON-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury. E. (L Chancellor.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  James, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Kenyon. L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshad.)

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Killanin, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Cross, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lamington, L.

  Abercorn, M (D. Abercorn.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  St Albans, L. Bp.

  Lindley, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Muskerry, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Newton, L.

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

  Addington. L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Ashbourne, L

  Dudley, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Belper, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  clubs have proved a great difficulty in many parts of the country, especially in the colliery districts. I hailed this Bill with great satisfaction, believing that it would remove many of the objections which exist in connection with the worst clubs, while leaving the best unaffected; but if the Clause is allowed to stand as it does now, it will open the door to so much mischief, that the benefit which might otherwise ensue, for the Bill will be entirely abrogated so far as these clubs are concerned. I have heard the argument used in this connection that we had better wait and see how the provisions of the Bill work before putting further restrictions upon clubs. But the raison d'être of the Bill is that these clubs have

  259
  been tried, and have been proved in very many instances to be a great evil. They are formed to a large extent for the purpose of drinking, and that being so, let us consider what will be the result of allowing liquor to be sold to members for consumption off the premises. You will perpetuate very many, if not all, of the evils which are now attendant on grocers' licences. It may be difficult to see exactly by what machinery the intention of the law will be evaded, but I can see several ways. Liquor may be supplied in the club and taken away by members and drunk in another place, and in that case, all the evils of the drinking club will be reproduced, while the club itself is conducted quite properly, and the law will be absolutely unable to touch it. Again, drink may be purchased and handed to friends outside the premises. Of course, if money passes in the transaction it renders it illegal; but it will be impossible to prove that money passed. The result will be, if the Clause is left as it stands, that these clubs will be just what they are now—merely drink shops—with this difference, that the consumption of the liquor will take place on some other premises. That is so great an evil that it is worth while trying to avoid it. It is said that this Amendment would prevent a member of a club from having his flask filled or purchasing wine at his club, but I should be ready to accept an Amendment leaving respectable clubs their liberty in that respect.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 27, page 12, line 38, to leave out 'except to a member on the premises.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland).
  LORD BELPER: I hope the House will not support the Amendment, as it is one which the Government cannot accept. I was rather surprised that the noble Duke gave the Government no credit for having dealt with this question of clubs in any way. As a matter of fact, the whole question has been very carefully considered, and a large part of the evil has been met by the provision in the Bill that no member of a club shall send anybody to get liquor at his club. I venture to think that the Government have gone so far in this matter as they can safely go. The noble
  260
  Duke's Amendment would prevent any member of a club having his flask filled at his club or obtaining wine for consumption off the premises, which is a common practice in country districts. That argument is met by saying that exceptions could be made in particular cases. The whole principle of the Bill is that the rich man's club and the poor man's club shall be dealt with on the same ground. Under the Bill as it stands the practice of taking liquor off the premises could, if frequently indulged in, be dealt with under subsection (b) of Clause 28, which provides that a club must be conducted in good faith as a club. I do not see why a working man should not be allowed to take beer from his club in the same way as he is able to take it from a public house. There certainly might be exceptional occasions, such as cases of sickness, when it would be extremely important that facilities should be available for obtaining alcohol, and especially when public houses are closed. I believe there is a general desire on the part of working men that there should be no abuse or improper use of the privilege of obtaining liquor from their clubs. Working men's clubs are very much opposed to this Amendment, not because they wish to encourage drinking, but because they feel it would be impossible to enforce it.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I am very sorry that the Government had not accepted this Amendment, which I look upon as one of great importance in the cause of temperance. As the Clause stands, you are putting great temptation in the way of working men and of members of clubs. Men who want liquor during the hours that public houses are closed have simply to go to one of the members of a club and say, "You get the liquor for us and come to our house and help to drink it." The authorities in such cases would have very great difficulty in enforcing the law. As the Government have gone so far, I think they might go a little farther.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause,"
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-contents, 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor).

  Stanhope, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry).

  James, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L President).

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller].

  Kenyon, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal).

  Killanin, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller].

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lamington, L.

  Abercorn M. (D. Abercorn).

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lindley, L.

  Addington, L.

  Newton, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Rathmore, L.

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

  Avebury, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Belper, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Morley, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss).

  Selborne, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D. [Teller]

  Stamford, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Cross, V. [Teller].

  Hatherton, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Welby, L.

  Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)moved an Amendment to insert the word "mainly" after the word "club" in the following sub-section of Clause 25—
  "In the application of this section to Oxford the Registrar of the Court of the Chancellor of the University shall be substituted for the clerk to the justices in the case of any club composed of members past or present of the University."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 25, page 12, line 23, after 'club', to insert 'mainly.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYmoved two Amendments in the sub-section of Clause 28 which provided that in the application of the section to Oxford the Court of Summary Jurisdiction should be the Court of the Chancellor of the University sitting and acting under the provisions of the forty-ninth and fiftieth years of the reign of Victoria, chapter thirty-one, in the case of any club composed of members past or present of the University; provided that that court should not have power to make an order that premises occupied by any such club should not be used for the purposes of a club.
  Amendments moved—
  "In Clause 28, page 13, line 43, after 'the,' to leave out the words 'provisions of the
  262
  forty-ninth and fiftieth years of the reign of Victoria, chapter thirty-one,' and to insert the words, 'Oxford University (Justices) Act 1886'; and in page 14, line 2, after 'club' to insert 'mainly.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Moved, That the Bill do pass.— (Lord Belper.)
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: Before the Bill passes, I should like once more to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the success which has attended their efforts, and on the skill with which, in the teeth of many difficulties, they have piloted through both Houses of Parliament a measure which I believe will do great good in the cause of temperance.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: As Lord Belper, in the course of his observations upon my Amendment, said that I gave the Government no credit for what they had done. I should like to say I agree with the right rev. prelate that the measure is a most valuable one, and that we are greatly indebted to the Government for passing it.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  COLONIAL NAVAL RESERVES.
  *LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made in the enrolment and training of a reserve force for the

  263
  Navy in Canada and Australia. I may remind your Lordships that a promise was made some years ago by Lord Goschen to a deputation of the Empire League that the subject would be taken in hand. Having had the honour of introducing the deputation, I am anxious to know what progress has been made. We have made great efforts in recent years to push forward new construction. We have provided crews mainly by increasing the permanent force. Our system ensures a high standard of efficiency; but we do not regard the Navies of foreign Powers as inefficient because they depend more than we do on well-trained reserves. Their system has advantages. It gives greater power of expansion, and admits of larger appropriations to shipbuilding. Ourexpenditure on ships in commission is estimated at £13,388,000. This is an excess of no less than £7,633,000 over the combined expenditure of France and Germany. On new construction our expenditure, large as it is, falls short of the combined expenditure of the two Powers by some £700,000. It is desirable to draw nearer to foreign administrations. If we could depend more on reserves it would help us. This brings me to the immediate subject of my Question. In the colonies we have ample resources for raising reserves. Turning to Canada, the seafaring men of the maritime provinces have been estimated at 200,000. There are no serious administrative difficulties. It has been reported that a beginning has been made, that men have been embarked in the Fleet, and that the experiment is a success. I should be glad to hear from the noble Earl the First Lord that that report could be confirmed. Australia cannot vie with Canada, but the number of seafaring men has been estimated at 30,000. and they are of a most reliable class. The high rates of pay in the Australian coasting trade call for modifications in the regulations as laid down for the reserve at home. When a communication was received from the Admiralty under Lord Goschen, proposing the enrolment of naval reserves, the subject was referred by the Premiers to the naval commandants. Their recommendations would, I confidently believe,
  264
  have met local conditions without sacrificing efficiency. With all details the able Commander-in-Chief on the Australian station is fully competent to deal. My main object is to press that the colonial naval reserves should not be neglected. A naval reserve force has been in existence in Australia for many years. They have been full of zeal, but have had no opportunity of doing serviee. When troubles occurred in China some hundreds volunteered, and had the honour of serving ashore under Sir Edward Seymour. The "Protector," the only available vessel in the local flotilla, was offered, and promptly despatched to join the squadron. The seamen of Australia are at least as anxious as the forces on shore to aid the Empire.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): The question raised by the noble Lord is largely bound up with the number of ships it is necessary to keep in permanent commission. That the noble Lord knows well; and his comparison of the difference in the amount of money which is expended in France and Germany and in this country for the maintenance of ships in commission can only be judged according to the circumstances and conditions which each country has to meet. We do not keep a large fleet in commission for the pleasure of the thing, but because it is an imperial necessity. We are obliged to do it partly for the adequate defence of these islands, but also largely in connection with the peculiar character of the British Empire. There is an amount of imperial police work, if I may use that description, going on in every station all over the world, which to a large and increasing extent governs the number of the ships that we have to keep permanently in commission. Therefore, this question of reserve, and the proportion they should bear to active service ratings, is inextricably mixed up with the number of ships we have to keep in commission; and, the circumstances of countries being dissimilar, no fair parallel can be drawn from the amount of money France and Germany spend upon keeping ships in commission and what we spend. Notwithstanding that, I entirely agree with the noble Lord in his desire to develop the naval reserves of this Empire. But he

  265
  has brought this question forward when I am singularly unable to speak on the subject, for two reasons. The first is that the whole subject of naval reserves has been referred to a Committee, of which Sir Edward Grey is the Chairman, and which has not yet reported. The second is that this question of naval reserves in connection with the colonies is coming forward for discussion in the Conference of Colonial Premiers which is now taking place. I am, therefore, debarred from dealing with the subject at present. I can only say, in conclusion, that we have tried to establish a branch of the Royal Naval Reserve on the coast of Newfoundland, composed of Newfoundland fishermen. One hundred of these fishermen have been embarked—fifty last year and fifty this year; and so a branch of the Naval Reserve has been fairly started, and your Lordships will be glad to learn that the reports of the officers in whose ships those men have embarked are in every sense satisfactory. They speak in the warmest terms of the men's aptitude for training and the excellence of the material.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o' clock.