Sitting of 12 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

ARREST OF MR. ARTHUR LYNCH, M. P.
MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following letter relating to the arrest of Mr. Lynch:—
Police Court, Bow Street.
11th June, 1902.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Arthur Lynch, M.P. for Galway City, was arrested and brought up this day at this Court before me, charged, upon a warrant granted by me, with treason, and was remanded in custody until Saturday, the 14th June instant.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. DE RUTZEN.
The Right Honourable
The Speaker of the
House of Commons.
Subsequently:—
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I desire, as a matter of privilege, to firing before you, Sir, a matter affecting the detention of an hon. Member from his Parliamentary duties in a ease which has recently occurred in which a Member of the House was charged with high treason.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I wish to say at once that that is a matter which cannot be brought forward as a matter of privilege. It is now before the Criminal Courts.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Certainly, Sir. But I say there has been a breach of privilege committed in that no communication has been made to the House of the arrest of one of its Members for high treason. That fact should have been communicated to this House in the ordinary and proper way.
MR. SPEAKER: This is a point of practice and not of privilege.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, Sir, and if you will allow me I will raise it as a matter of practice. I bring it forward because what has occurred on this occasion may be used as a precedent at a time when it might be very dangerous in its application. I do not raise the question on behalf of the hon. Member for Galway, with whom I have had no communication, but as a matter affecting the privileges of the House generally. It is laid down by Sir Erskine May that, in all eases where Members are arrested on criminal charges, the House must be informed of the cause for which they are detained from their service in Parliament. It is also laid down that in the ease of commitments for high treason or any military offence communication has to be made by Royal message. A few lines further down the reason for that is shown—
"In the case of naval Courts-martial the communication is to be made by the Lord High Admiral or the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty by whom the warrant is issued."
These are cases of arrest for high treason—
"It is the ordinary practice of the Home Secretary who signs a warrant to communicate to the House as a Minister of the Crown."
Then, again, Sir Erskine May says—
"Another form of communication to either House of Parliament is in the nature of a verbal Message delivered by command by a Minister of the Grown to the House of which he is a Member."
Sir Erskine May further says—
"This communication is made whenever a Member of either House is arrested for any crime at the suit of the Crown, as the privileges of the House require that the House should be informed of the cause for which their Member is imprisoned and retained from his services in Parliament."
High treason is pre-eminently a crime at the suit of the Crown. I have only been able to discover two precedents. In the ease of Lord George Gordon, in 1780, Lord North, who was then Prime Minister,

479
went to the bar of the House and communicated a verbal Message that, at the King's command, Lord George Gordon had been arrested and charged with high treason. In the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, in 1848, an exactly analogous practice was adopted. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the moment the news came to his ears, wrote a letter to the Speaker, on August 5th, 1848, from the office of the Viceroy, stating that it was his painful duty to inform him that Mr. Smith O'Brien had been imprisoned. As the representative of the Crown, the Lord Lieutenant's was practically a verbal Message. Let me tell you what occurred yesterday. The Home Secretary, who must, in the course of his duties, have signed the warrant—
MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that I have already read a letter from Sir A. de Rutzen in which he states that the hon. Member for Galway was arrested upon a warrant signed by himself.
MR. MACNEILL: I did not hear that. But the Home Secretary said—
"The prisoner will be brought up this afternoon, and all about it will become public property."
That is not the way to treat the House of Commons as the grand inquest of the nation. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It was only an Irish Member.] He should have given us the information by a verbal message from the Crown. The First Lord of the Treasury, when I asked him not discourteously, said that was a question which should not be addressed to him. May I now, with the greatest courtesy, but with the greatest directness, challenge that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember he is addressing me now on some point of practice.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Very well, Mr. Speaker. You have heard me with great patience and great courtesy, and I have put the matter before you as well as I could. It is the invariable practice that the House of Commons should be communicated with, in a case of a charge of treason against one of its Members, by a Message from the Crown, and the reason is that treason is pre-eminently
480
a crime against the Crown. If that were not so, the relations between the King and the House might be very strained. It is a proper thing when a Minister of the Crown advises the arrest for high treason of a member of this House that that arrest should be told by him, taking on himself, as he is bound to do, the responsibility of the King and the delivery of the Royal Message. It has been done in every other case, and I do not think that if this were a British Member this would have happened. I say that not attributing any unfairness to hon. Gentlemen. We wish to protect to the utmost of our power the privileges of this House. I am not personally affected by the case of Mr. Lynch. I bring it forward as I would bring forward the case of any other hon. Gentleman who is a Member of this House. I leave the matter in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you respectfully to rule that it is in accordance with practice in cases of high treason that a Minister of the Crown should communicate the action of the Crown by a verbal Message, and that the practice is necessary for the preservation of the liberties of Members.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that it is of the highest importance, when a Member of this House has been arrested, and, therefore, has been prevented from performing his duties in Parliament, that the earliest opportunity should be taken of informing this House of his arrest. That is a duty which is ordinarily performed by the magistrate before whom the person charged is brought. That has been done in this case. The hon. Member seeks to establish it as a rule of procedure of this House that in a case of high treason a Message must be delivered by a Minister of the Crown from the Crown of this House I am not surprised at his raising this point, because there are undoubtedly words in Sir Erskine May's book which would go a long way to support him in that view. When the hon. Member asked me a question on this matter yesterday, I had no notice of the question, and, as he himself says, in the last 120 years there have been only two charges of high treason

481
against Members of this House. Therefore it is a matter with which I may well be expected not to be very familiar. But I have had an opportunity of looking at the precedents, and I am bound to say that they do not seem to me to bear out what is stated in Sir Erskine May's book. The hon. Member has referred to these two—the only two—precedents. His proposition is that, whenever an hon. Member of this House is charged with high treason, it is the duty of the Minister to communicate to the House a verbal Message from the Crown at the Table. These two precedents were that of Lord George Gordon in 1780, and that of Mr. Smith O'Brien in 1848. In the case of Lord George Gordon there was a Message from the Grown delivered at the Table. But that was a case of a very peculiar kind. It was a case where, as the hon. Member, who we all know is well versed in history, is aware, there had been, some days before the Message was delivered, an assault upon this House. A large mob brought to the House by Lord George Gordon assaulted and intimidated Members on their way to the House, and the result was that the House was in considerable peril for some time. The House the next day passed resolutions condemning the conduct of the mob and asserting their right to be free from such interference. In those circumstances Lord George Gordon, having afterwards joined the mob in London, was arrested by the Crown on a charge of high treason. It seems to me that when the House itself had been attacked it was an extremely natural thing that His Majesty should send a formal communication of the fact of the arrest to the House. That is the only case in which, in regard to an arrest upon a simple charge of high treason, a Message was sent by the Crown at all. The hon. Member also quoted the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien as an authority in his favour, but he forgets that in the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien no such Message was delivered. He gets over that difficulty by saying that something analogous happened. There was nothing analogous at all. What happened was simply that a great Executive officer in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant, not acting as Viceroy, but as an Executive Minister, wrote a letter to the Speaker informing him of
482
the arrest of the Member. It would have been perfectly regular, whether it was necessary or not, if the Home Secretary had written such a letter to me in this case. But it does not at all follow that a Loyal Message is necessary; nor is the case of a letter written by the Lord Lieutenant to the Speaker informing him of the arrest of a Member analogous to a Loyal Message. Therefore, of the two authorities cited, one of them—the case of Lord George Gordon—appears to me to be a very exceptional case, and the other one is no authority at all with regard to a Loyal Message. In these circumstances, I see no ground for the suggestion that the arrest of a Member of this House on a charge of high treason should be intimated to the House in any different way from the arrest of a Member charged with any other criminal offence.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ABERTILLERY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS],
  BRADFORD-ON-AVON GAS BILL [LORDS],
    SWANSEA CORPORATION WATER BILL [LORDS],
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL,

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING Of WORKING CLASSES) BILL,
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL,
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS ((No. 2) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    TIVERTON, MARKET BILL [LORDS].
    Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to: Gloucester-shire Electric Power Bill, Dartford Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, to enable the School Boards for Barnes, Epping, Fernhurst United District, Liverpool, Manchester, and Swansea United District, to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Barnes, etc.) Bill [Lords].]
    Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Both well and Uddingston gas, Cirencester gas, Garw and Ogmore gas, Rothwell gas, Skegness gas, and Welling-borough Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].]
    Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the North Staffordshire Tramways Company, Limited, to work their tramways by mechanical or electrical power, and for conferring further
    484
    powers upon that company, and the Potteries Electric Traction Company, Limited, with regard to their respective tramways; and for other purposes." [North Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords].]
    Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Rossendale Valley Tramways Company to extend their tramways; and for other purposes." [Rossendale Valley Tramways Bill [Lords].]
    Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Whitstable, in the county of Kent, to purchase the undertakings of the Whitstable Water Company, Limited, and the Whitstable Gas and Coke Company, Limited, and to supply water and gas; to transfer to the Council the powers within the District of the Commissioners of Sewers for the levels of East Kent; and to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes." [Whitstable improvement Bill [Lords].]
    And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Consett Waterworks Company; and for other purposes." [Consett Water Bill [Lords].]

    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time. Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills; and to be printed. [Bill 232.]
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time. Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS],
  ROSSENDALE VALLEY TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS],

    WHITSTABLE IMPROVEMENT BILL [LORDS],
    CONSETT WATER BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BELL.
  Petitions against: From Over Haddon, Moira, Piddington, Hinckley, Gayton, Brant Broughton, Llandissilio, Leicester, Bradford (two), and Gawthorpe; to lie upon the Table.
  FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Petition from the City of London, for inquiry into the compulsory system of registration: to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Preston and Great Bookham; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Lurgan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Preston, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  OCEAN MAIL CONTRACTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd June; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 214.]
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 5th June, 1902, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Inspector of Technical Instruction in the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET TRADING CHILDREN COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the employment of children during school age, especially in street trading in the large centres of population in Ireland, together with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 10th June, 1902, giving effect to a Rule of Court, under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2817 to 2820 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Sterenson]; to be printed. [No. 215.]

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WARNED.
  Copy ordered. "of Quarterly Returns, by counties, of the Public Elementary

  487
  Schools (1) which have been warned by the Board of Education under Article 86 of the Code, including schools from which the grant has been withheld under that article; (2) which have been warned by the Board of Education that the annual grant will, in future, be withheld unless defects in the school premises are remedied; (3) the annual grants to which have been suspended for three months or more from the date of the receipt by the Board of Education of the inspector's report on account of defects in school premises (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 189, of Session 1901)."—(Sir Frauds Powell.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Scottish Parochial Medical Officers.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of recommending parish councils throughout the Highland crofting counties, by means of circular or otherwise, to make arrangements such as will admit of parochial medical officers obtaining an annual holiday as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  (Answer.) I am informed that this subject was considered by the Local Government Board in 1900, and that their views are fully stated in their Report for that year at page xxv. The Board do not propose to do more than is there stated.—(Scottish Office.)

  Shipbuilding Programme, 1901–2.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state when the remaining battleship of the 1901 or last year's programme is to be commenced.
  (Answer.) All the battleships of the 1901–2 programme have already been commenced. The keel of one of them (H.M.S. "Commonwealth," for which the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company are the contractors) has not yet been laid, but it is expected to be laid within the next few days, and a considerable amount of casting and other preliminary work has already been done in connection with the vessel.—(Admiralty.)

  Voluntary Schools Accounts Audit.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state what steps have been taken by the Education Department, under the discretion claimed for it on the 17th March, 1897, with a view to make the audit of the accounts of voluntary schools effective; and whether the Department would be prepared to consider an Amendment to the Education Bill to introduce public audit by the district auditors.
  (Answer.) On 15th June, 1897, the Education Department issued a Minute requiring an audit of the accounts of every school receiving a share of the Aid Grant. This was superseded by a Minute, applicable to all voluntary schools, issued on 6th June, 1898; and now by an Article of the Code, which is as follows:—
  "85 (d) The accounts of the receipts and expenditure of every school not provided by a School Board must be annually audited by a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, or of the Society of Accountants and Auditors, or by a banker or bank manager, or, on special application to the Board, by some other person, not being a manager or treasurer of the school, whose competency is proved to the satisfaction of the Board."—(Board of Education.)

  South Africa—Telegraphic Announcement of the Peace.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will explain why the news of peace was not telegraphed on the evening of Sunday 1st June to all telegraph offices in the country for the information of the public.
  (Answer.) The Postmaster General was not in a position to say beforehand that the news of peace would be received, and he could not therefore make arrangements for carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Member. The number of telegraph offices at which attendance is given on Sunday evenings is relatively very small.—(Post Office.)

  Post Office—East Central District Office Accommodation.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what was

  489
  the amount of lavatory accommodation on the 1st April, 1897, and what it is now for the postmen at the East Central District Office; whether he is aware that the lavatories are also used by telegraph messengers, refreshment bar employees, and others, and, seeing that the library is available only to subscribers of all classes of postal employees belonging to the East Central District Office, the foreign and registered and other sections, will he state what the total number of these subscribers is, and when the additional retiring room space will be available for occupation.
  (Answer.) On the 1st of April, 1897, he lavatory accommodation for the postmen at the eastern Central District Office contained sixteen washing basins. There are now twenty-nine basins. In 1897 there were eighteen water-closets used by the postmen and sorters; there are now fifteen closets for the postmen only. The lavatory is not used by telegraph messengers, and the refreshment branch servants only use it occasionally to draw water, but it seems that during the day time some telegraph messengers have improperly used the closets. The refreshment branch servants are provided for elsewhere. The number of subscribers to the library is understood to vary between 400 and 600, of whom about one-half are postmen. The additional retiring room referred to has already been occupied.—(Post Office.)

  Customs Officials' Special Grant.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how many officials participated in the division of the special grant recently placed at the disposal of the Board of Customs; whether the payment of these bonuses absorbed the balance of the savings on the Customs vote; whether the recipients were the only officers not ordinarily entitled to overtime who rendered special services in connection with the sugar and coal duties; whether any officials, and if so, what officials received also increases of salary; whether the special grant referred to, and the selection of the recipients, were made on the initiative of the Treasury or the Board of Customs; and,
  490
  if the latter, whether the Board recommended for recognition any member or members of the Outdoor Department of Customs for services rendered in connection with the coal and sugar duties; and can he explain why, while an increase in salary was granted to the superintendent of messengers in the Indoor Department, no such recognition was obtained by any of the officials of the Outdoor Department.
  (Answer.) The number of officials who participated in the special grant was eight, and seven others received increases of salary. These were the only officers who were considered to have a claim to special recognition for the services in question. The payment of the bonuses did not absorb the balance of the savings on the Customs Vote. I must respectfully decline to answer questions as to the nature of any confidential communications which may have passed between the Treasury and the Board of Customs.—(Treasury.)

  Customs Statistical Office—Annual Leave.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, in consideration of the amount of overtime duty performed in connection with the increase of work occasioned by the coal and sugar duties and the preparation of the annual statement of trade, and in view of the fact that Second Division and Port clerks in the Customs receive an additional seven days annual leave after live years service, he will consider an increase of the amount of annual leave granted to the senior clerks in the Customs Statistical Office.
  (Answer.) Senior clerics in the Statistical Office under standing regulations (General Order 10/1899) are entitled to thirty-six days leave contingent on their giving seven hours daily attendance. It is not considered necessary to increase this amount.—(Treasury.)

  Friendly Societies Investments.
  SIR SAMUEL HOARE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the present advantages of investment with the National Debt Commissioners enjoyed by the friendly societies under the provisions of Sec. 52, ch. 25, 59 and 60 Vic, would be affected by a reduction of interest on savings

  491
  bank funds in 1903; whether the rate of interest now payable to friendly societies by trustee and Post Office savings banks will be affected by such reduction.
  (Answer.) When the interest on consols was reduced from 3 to 2¾ per cent., it was provided by the National Debt (Supplemental) Act, 1888, that the interest payable by the National Debt Commissioners to friendly societies upon their investments on account of assurances effected after the 28th June, 1888, should not exceed 2¾ per cent. This left untouched the existing rates of 3d., 2½d., and 2d. a day on assurances before that date. In the event of a reduction of the interest on the savings banks funds next year, it would presumably be provided that the same reduction should apply to all investments which do not relate to assurances prior to the 28th June, 1883, maintaining for those assurances the existing privileged rates. As regards their deposits in the trustee and Post Office savings banks, the friendly societies would be treated like other depositors.—(Treasury.)

  Episcopal Residences—Rateable Value.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether he can state the aggregate rateable value of the episcopal residences in England and Wales, exclusive of the new archiepiscopal residence at Canterbury.
  (Answer.) The rateable values of the episcopal residences are set out in the Church Property and Revenues Return (No. 287, of 1891). The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have no later or other information as to such values.—(Ecclesiastical Commission.)

  Worcester Episcopal Residence—Hartlebury Castle.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether arrangements have been made for the sale by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or on their behalf, of Hartlebury Castle, in the diocese of Worcester; if so, whether he will state the sum to be realised by such sale, and what sum the
  492
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners propose to spend on the provision of a new residence for the Bishop of Worcester.
  (Answer.)—The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have not made arrangements for the sale of Hartlebury Castle. They have, however, informed the Bishop of Worcester that, provided that a suitable residence can be obtained, or means be found for erecting such a residence, they are not unwilling to approve of the sale of Hartlebury Castle. No scheme for providing another episcopal residence for the See has been submitted to the Commissioners.—(Ecclesiastical Commission.)

  Navigation Laws.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause a reprint of the Navigation Laws to be laid upon the Table, and consider as to whether their re-enactment is desirable in view of the efforts now being made to undermine British merchant shipping, and to transfer it to foreign flags.
  (Answer.) A comparative statement of the Navigation Laws of 1660, and those in force in 1847, which appears to have been compiled at the Board of Trade, may be found at page 146 of the Fifth Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, No. 323, of 1847, and I shall be prepared to have this statement reprinted if the hon. and gallant Member desires it.—(Board of Trade.)

  Coronation Processions—Facilities for Members.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, and, if so, up to what hour, holders of tickets for places on the House of Commons' stands on 26th June will be permitted to proceed to such places by way of the subway leading from the Westminster station of the District Railway.
  (Answer.) The subways leading into New Palace Yard will be open up to 10 o'clock on the 26th for the convenience of Members and their friends holding tickets for the House of Commons'

  493
  stands in New Palace Yard and Parliament Square. The police will arrange to pass such seat-holders in Parliament Square up to 10 o'clock, but it will be a distinct convenience if every effort is made to arrive as much before that hour as possible.—(Office of Works.)

  Danube Navigation Commission—British Representative.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what are the duties of the Commissioner for the Navigation of the Danube, and whether he holds any other office (Civil Service Estimates, Glass A., Vote 1, Item K).
  (Answer.) By Article 16 of the Treaty of Paris of 30th March, 1856, it was agreed that, with a view to carrying out the arrangements of the preceding Article relative to the navigation of the Danube, a Commission, on which each of the high contracting parties should be represented by a delegate, should be charged to designate and to cause to be executed certain works, and to settle the dues for defraying the expenses connected with them. The British Commissionership has been for many years past combined with the Consular Post at Galatz.—(Foreign Office.)

  International Slave Trade Bureaux.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will say what are the duties of the international Slave Trade Bureaux or Bureau at Brussels and Zanzibar.
  (Answer.) The duties of the Bureaux in question are defined in Chapter V. of the General Act of the Brussels Conference, signed 2nd July, 1890, and published in the "Map of Africa by Treaty," Volume 1, p. 48. In this Act the Bureau is directed to draw up regulations with a view of securing the object of the institution, namely, the centralisation of documents and information which may be required for the repression of the slave trade in the maritime zone.—(Foreign Offire.)

  Persian Gulf—Karun Steamship Subsidy.
  MR. MOON: TO ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  494
  whether he will explain why £500 is set down for the year 1902–3 in respect of a subsidy for a steam service on the Karun for six months up to 31st December, 1901.
  (Answer.) The subsidy was only payable in case of a deficit being shown in the accounts of the Steamship Company for the six mouths ending 31st December, 1901. It could not, therefore, be paid until the audited accounts of the Company for that period had been presented.—(Foreign Office.)

  British Guiana and Brazil Arbitration.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Guiana and Brazil arbitration has yet commenced.
  (Answer.) No, Sir. It is provided by Article V. of the Arbitration Treaty between this country and Brazil that the cases of the two parties shall be delivered to the arbitrator within a period not exceeding twelve months of the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty. The ratifications were exchanged on 28th January last.—(Foreign Office.)

  Estimates for Unforeseen Missions and Services.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the sum set down for unforeseen missions and services for each of the ten years preceding 1901–2.
  (Answer.) The amounts estimated for unforeseen missions and services during the ten years preceding 1901–2 are as follow:—

  £

  1891–2

  9,150

  1892–3

  4,700

  1893–4

  3,700

  1894–5

  6,900

  1895–6

  10,300

  1896–7

  7,050

  1897–8

  8,050

  1898–9

  6,650

  1899–1900

  10,850

  1900–1901

  12,150

  The expenditure is shown in the statements appended to the annual appropriation Accounts which are laid before Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General.—(Foreign Office.)

  Irish Evening School Teachers— Arrears of Pay.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some national teachers in Ireland who taught evening schools have not yet been paid for the term which ended in April; and whether he can state definitely when the money will be paid.
  (Answer.) Payment of the capitation rate in respect of evening continuation schools is made after an examination of the reports of the Board's inspectors. The sessions of nearly 400 such schools ended in April, and payment has already been made in the cases of some 200 of these. The work of examining the reports in the remaining cases is proceeding as rapidly as possible, and payment will be made without avoidable delay.—(Irish Office.)

  Army Clothing Department Employees.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state whether there is any intention of putting the packers in the Royal Army Clothing Department, Pimlico, on piecework; whether the women machinists were recently asked to complete more quickly the new pattern shoulder straps, for which they were paid at the rate of 2s. 1d. for ten pairs; and whether the authorities are now reducing the rate to 1s. 8d. per ten pairs, in consequence of the fact that certain skilled hands succeeded in getting through an unusual amount of work in the week. And, whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the supervisor to issue two garments instead of one, seeing that, under the present system, the hand-sewer who is on piecework is frequently compelled to wait until the machinists have finished the stitching.
  (Answer.) The question of putting the packers on piecework is under consideration. Recently there was a pressing demand for the new pattern shoulder straps, but no unusual pressure was put on the women machinists, who were paid 2s. 1d. for ten pairs. Tin's rate will shortly be reduced to 1s. 8d., owing to the large number of pairs which the average machinist has proved able
  496
  to turn out. As regards the last paragraph, it is the general rule to issue two garments in all cases where praeticablc.—(War Office.)

  Orange River Colony—Compensation to Mr. P. Crause.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state to whom, and in respect of what loss, £200 is paid for compensation allowance, in consequence of giving up the Orange River Territory in 1854.
  (Answer.) I understand that the compensation allowance is paid to Percy Crause, whose office of Secretary to the Government of the Orange Liver territory was abolished when British Sovereignty was withdrawn in 1854.—(Colonial Office.)

  West African Delimitation Commission.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will indicate the nature of the payments made in respect of the three West African De-limitation Commissions, payments which appear to average about "£500 per month for each Commission.
  (Answer.) The payments are made on account of the salaries, allowances, and passages of the Boundary Commissioners and their assistants, and of their camp equipment and scientific instruments, and they also include a considerable item for the carriers who have to be provided locally to transport the Commissioners and their stores.—(Colonial Office.)

  Physical Training in Elementary Schools.
  MR. PRIESTLEY: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state when the Education Return, referring to the model course of physical training in public elementary schools, presented to the House on 14th May, will be placed in the hands of Members of the House.
  (Answer.) The Return is in the Library of the House of Commons, and can be seen there. No copies have been circulated, because a new edition of the model coarse is shortly to be issued.—(Board of Education.)

  Bank of England and Powers of Attorney.
  MR. BOULNOIS: To ask Mr. Attorney General whether he will explain why the Governors of the Bank of England and other bodies refuse to recognise and act on the office copy of a power of attorney, duly attested, stamped, and issued by the High Court of Judicature; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to put a stop to this practice.
  (Answer.) The production of the original power of attorney is necessary to guard against the danger of forgery. I do not think that it would be for the public advantage that the present practice should be altered.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  Injured Animals Act 1894.
  MR. BANBURY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the police refused to allow a horse that had been seriously injured in Piccadilly to be destroyed by anyone but a licensed knacker, though a veterinary surgeon had given the requisite certificate; and whether he will take steps to make the police acquainted with the provisions of The Injured Animals Act, 1804, which authorises a constable in such a case to destroy the horse himself or cause it to be destroyed: and whether he will instruct the police to carry out all the provisions of that Act.
  (Amwer.) I am in communication with the Commissioner of Police respecting this Question and hope to be able to give a further reply at a later date.—(Home Office.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Cape Constitution.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any protest from the Prime Minister of Cape Colony in relation to Lord Milner's action in recommending both to the loyalists and to a private Member of the Capo Legislative Council that his Ministry should be dissolved by the suspension of the Constitution.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLATN,): I have no reason to believe that Lord Milner has taken the action imputed in the Question, and in any ease I have received no protest from Sir Gordon Sprigg.

  Civil Administration in Cape Colony.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a public statement made by Mr. A. Wilmot, a Member of the Legislative Council of Cape Colony, to the effect that Lord Milner desires to establish a nominated Legislative Council in Cape Colony, and has recommended that this policy be adopted; and if he has any official information respecting this statement.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Neither Mr. Wilmot nor any one else is authorised to express Lord Milner's views, and I have no statement to make on the subject at present.

  Government Land Purchases in the New Colonies.
  MR CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state what is the extent of land held by the Government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, and how much has been acquired by purchase, confiscation, or succession from the Governments of the late Republics; whether the Government are purchasing land in either of the above colonies and what steps are being taken to make an English Settlement on such lands, and what is the total number of applicants with experience of farming and without previous experience respectively.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Information as to Government lands is published at pages 69 and 245 of Code 627, and I have no later information. These lands passed to the colonial administrations upon the annexation of the Republics. No land has been acquired by confiscation. Lord Milner has acquired by purchase in the Orange River Colony a number of blocks of farms amounting altogether to over 60,000 morgen. The question of the exact steps to be taken with regard to settlement is still under consideration, and

  499
  I cannot at present make any Statement. The number of applicants both with and without farming experience is large, but I cannot at present give the numbers.

  General Inquiry into the War.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the general inquiry into the war and the publication of the results of inquiries into surrenders, whether he will state what form of inquiry, and what date of publication recommend themselves to His Majesty's Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Government are pledged to a general inqury into the war, if it is is desired, and they recognise that there is a desire for such an inquiry. They think the best form that such an inquiry could take would be by a small Royal Commission.
  MR. DILLON: Will a special inquiry be held into the meat contract for South Africa?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think it would be desirable to proceed with a general inquiry and a series of special inquiries.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman name a time when the appointment of the Commission will be proposed?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, it is not possible now to mention any date.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the proposed Commission be an open or a secret inquiry?
  MR. BRODRICK: That is a matter which must have careful consideration. In all probability there will be some parts of the inquiry which will have to be conducted in private.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Are we to understand that by this Royal Commission there "ill be a universal inquiry into all subjects, including military questions, such as the surrenders? Will the same Commission
  500
  inquire into questions, say, of discipline, as well as such other questions as contracts?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not prepared at this moment to give the terms of the reference, but they will, no doubt, be of a general character.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will there be any opportunity of considering whether a Royal Commission or a Committee of the House would be bettor for the purpose of the inquiry? I would also ask whether the inquiry would not be better if it were sub-divided. This would be better than a roving inquiry over the whole field.
  [No answer was given.]

  Cost of the War.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause a Return to be prepared and issued during the present Session, giving details and totals of the various financial and fiscal measures taken to maintain the war in South Africa, both before and after October 1899, and to include the expenses after the cessation of hostilities, with a view to showing the cost of the war up to the establishment of a normal state of affairs in South Africa.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): All the information that could at present be given is included in the Return moved for by the hon. Member for the Poplar Division, in my revised Budget statement and in the revised statement of Army Expenditure recently circulated. If the hon. Member will communicate with me on the subject later on in the session I will consider whether any further details can then be supplied.

  Coronation—Representative Reservists from the late Seat of War.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will consider the advisability of publishing the names of the Reservists selected to return home to represent the Army at the Coronation.
  MR. BRODKICK: The "Bavarian" will not reach Southampton until the 25th instant, and I am afraid it would be impossible to obtain the names of the men in time for circulation to the press. I do not think the great expense of having the names telegraphed would be justifiable.

  Commander in Chief—Supposed Allowances.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what are the amount and character of the allowances of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, in addition to those given in the Estimates.
  MR. BRODRICK: There are no such allowances.

  Rhodesia—Threatened Native Rising in 1900—Chartered Company and Imperial Government.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether on 1st March, 1900, a communication was received from the Chartered Company, that the Company had received a cable from Bulawayo to the effect that a rising of the natives of Rhodesia was anticipated, and whether on the same day the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs received a letter from Lord Grey, urging that artillery and troops should be sent at once from the Cape to the assistance of the Chartered Company; and, if so, will he state whether the Government at that particular time acceded to this request, and whether this cost was paid by the Chartered Company.
  MR. BRODRICK: The request of the Chartered Company for such assistance was communicated to Lord Roberts on the 28th February, 1900. It was, however, impossible for the Commander-in-Chief to give any such assistance at the moment.
  MR. MARKHAM: Now that the war is over, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will publish the correspondence which took place. He has not answered my Question, whether the communication was received from Lord Grey.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think there is any necessity to publish the correspondence. I have answered the Question fully.

  Compulsory Labour in Rhodesia.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ash the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information that compulsory labour is again being enforced in Rhodesia, and seeing that Sir Richard Martin reported to the late Lord Rosmead in January, 1897, that one of the causes of the Rhodesian rebellion of 1896 was due to the Chartered Company's officials, with the knowledge of the Company, obtaining compulsory labour by force, whether His Majesty's Government will order an inquiry into the causes which have again necessitated their sending armed forces to assist this Company in suppressing rebellion among the native population.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no such information. I am not aware of any rebellion among the native population, nor of any despatch of armed forces by His Majesty's Government to assist the Company in an emergency which has not arisen.
  MR. MARKHAM: Arising out of that answer, and following on my Question to the Secretary for War, may I ask whether any communication passed between the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman on the date mentioned—March 1st, 1900, in reference to the rebellion in Rhodesia.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Paper, which refers to the present time. The hon. Member is now referring to something that took place two and a half years ago.
  MR. MARKHAM: My Question is whether the Government will order an inquiry into the causes which necessitated sending armed forces to the assistance of the Chartered Company in 1900. I will put another Question.

  Coronation Naval Review—Facilities for Colonial and Indian Troops.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether arrangements are

  503
  being made by the Admiralty to enable the Colonial and Indian contingents of troops that will be present in this country, to visit the Coronation Naval Review at Spithead.
  THE SECRETAEY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Arrangements have been made to enable the Colonial and Indian troops present in this country to visit the Naval Review. The Colonial troops will embark at Southampton on the morning of the 28th inst, in the steamship "Bavarian," and the Indian troops in either the "Roslin Castle," or the "Dilwara."

  First Sea Lord of the Admiralty.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he will state what are the amount and character of the allowances of the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty in addition to those given in the Estimates.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty is not in receipt of any allowances in addition to the emoluments indicated on Page 154 of the Naval Estimates.

  Armenian Disturbances—Claims of British Subjects.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign A flairs whether all claims by British subjects against the Turkish Government in respect of losses incurred during the Armenian massacres and the disturbances incidental thereto at Constantinople have been settled.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has reported that these claims have been paid.

  Preservation of Big Game in Africa.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what further steps have recently been taken by His Majesty's Government, either with or without the co-operation of
  504
  other Powers, to further protect large game in those parts of Africa within the spheres of British influence; in particular, what big-game reserves are now established in South, Central, and Eastern Africa, and by what means is the sanctity of such preserves enforced; also whether a licence is now required to kill big game in any parts of British Africa, and, if so, under what restrictions and conditions such licences are issued.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Regulations for the preservation of large game in the British Protectorates in Africa administered by the Foreign Office have for some time been in force, The present regulations are modelled on the conclusions of the International Conference which met in London in May 1899 and have been published in the several Protectorates. Copies are obtainable at the Foreign Office, and I shall be glad to supply one to my hon. friend. They fix certain reserves within which no shooting is allowed, and establish limitations of the amount of game which may be shot elsewhere. These regulations are protected by penalties. In East Africa an officer entitled a Game Ranger has been appointed, whose duty it is to see that the Regulations are enforced. Any one visiting the Protectorates for the purposes of sport is required to pay for a licence; in East Africa and Uganda £50, in Somaliland £33, and in British Central Africa £25. There are regulations for the protection of game in South Africa and British West Africa, but questions as to these regions should be addressed to the Colonial Office.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. CHARLES SPENCER: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the variety of practice as to the charging of fees for a certificate of exemption from compulsory vaccination, and as to the doubts which exist as to the payment of such fees; and whether he can suggest any method for abolishing such fees.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. Since this matter was

  505
  raised in Committee of Supply I have refreshed my memory with regard to it. It is true that the fees referred to vary in different places; but so also—and to a greater extent do other fees similarly fixed by Tables prepared by local authorities. When the Tables are submitted for the approval of the Secretary of State every effort is made to secure uniformity, but his power does not extend to enforcing it. I am not aware of any doubt as to the power of the local authorities to fix such fees; but I may say that the Northamptonshire Standing Joint Committee have recently submitted to me a Table from which it would appear that they do not desire that such fees should be charged within their jurisdiction. The matter is receiving consideration.
  MR. CHARLES SPENCER: Under what statute is the fee charged?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not in my mind the particular statute of the general law which gives power to charge fees for certain services.

  Fatal Fire in the City.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the premises at 67, Queen Victoria Street, where the fire took place on the 9th June by which ten persons lost their lives, was a work-; shop within the meaning of the Factory Act; and can he state whether the premises were erected after the 1st January, 1896, and whether forty people were employed there.
  MR. RITCHIE: No part of the buildings in which the fire took place was registered as a workshop under the Factory Act. The question whether any part was used for purposes entailing an obligation to so register the premises is a difficult one and I am causing enquiry to be made. The premises were erected before 1896, and even if any part ought to have been registered as a workshop, I understand that only twenty-two persons were employed in that part.
  MR. TENNANT: If the premises were not so registered, what was the reason of the omission? Is it possible
  506
  for anybody to carry on business in a workshop without registering his premises?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I am afraid it is possible to do so. It is the duty of the owner of a factory to give notice to the Inspector for the purpose of registration, and if he does not give notice he is, of course, liable to a penalty.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the lives lost in the fire at 47, Queen Victoria Street, whether he intends to take such steps, by legislation or otherwise, as will in future secure the safety from fire of persons employed on the upper floors of high buildings.
  MR. RITCHIE: The matter is a very serious one, and I shall fully consider the question whether legislation is necessary; but before arriving at any decision I must await the result of the inquest in the case under notice. In the meantime I will communicate with the London County Council, the authority primarily responsible in this matter.

  Inflammable Paints.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the steps which have been taken in redemption of his promise of the 13th of August, 1901, to secure protection for workpeople engaged in painting with inflammable paints.
  MR. RITCHIE: As the hon. Member is well aware the Act of last session greatly extended the responsibility of the Factory Department in many directions: and of the new questions with which the Department has to deal none has presented greater difficulties or has received more attention than its extended duties with regard to docks and shipping. I hope soon to be in a position to issue a circular to dock and ship owners, and possibly to propose regulations in the interest of safety. When I do so, it is my intention, in accordance with my promise, to make recommendations with regard to the use of inflammable paints in ships. As the hon. Member is

  507
  aware, I have no compulsory powers on the last point and can only make recommendations.

  Fifeshire Coal Industry.
  MR. JOHN HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, seeing that the output of coal in Fifeshire has doubled during the last twenty-five years, and looking to the number of colliery disasters in the county recently, he will appoint additional inspectors of mines and make it a condition that one at least shall reside in Fifeshire.
  MR. RITCHIE: Last year I authorised the removal of the headquarters of the East Scotland Mining District from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and the transfer of a part of the Lanarkshire coalfield from that district to the West Scotland district. These steps were taken chiefly in order to give the Inspectors for East Scotland easier access to Fifeshire, and to allow them to devote more time to inspection in that county. I am satisfied that these measures are sufficient, that the Fifeshire mines receive adequate inspection, and that the Inspectors are within reach of any mine where their presence is required.

  Post Office Supervising Officials.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: J. beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made with a view to ascertaining whether the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, that it is undesirable that the wages of a supervising officer in the Postal Department should be lower than the wages of the class that he is supervising, is being carried out.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General does not think any enquiry necessary on this point, as it is a general rule of the Service that the scale of supervising classes should exceed that of the classes subordinate to them. If the hon. Member can cite any instance in which this rule is not observed, he will perhaps be good enough to let the Postmaster General know of it.

  Question Rules—Cost of New Arrangement.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state what is estimated to be the increased cost of paper, printing and binding due to the present method of carrying out the new rule with regard to Questions to which oral answers are not desired.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the assumption that the number of Questions remains on an average about the same as during the last few weeks, the Controller of the Stationery Office estimates the increased cost at about £1,700 for a session of ordinary length.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of effecting economies under this head?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That Question should be addressed to the House, and not to me.

  Police on Associated Estates in Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of police doing duty under ordinary circumstances on what are called the associated estates in the west of Ireland, the number employed at the present date, the cost under ordinary circumstances, and the cost of the added force; and whether the district has to pay for the extra men now employed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The normal establishment of police in the area mentioned consists of thirty-nine men, whose cost would be about £260 per month. Owing to the agitation against the payment of rent on the De Freyne and Murphy Estates, and the necessity for affording protection to the sheriff's officers and other persons in the pursuit of their lawful avocations, as well as to tenants who have left the combination, the normal force has been largely increased, and there are at present eighty-three Police employed. Of the added force, twenty-two have been supplied from the country and their cost will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote. One-half of the cost of the remaining twenty-two men, amounting to £63 3s. 7d. per month, is recoverable from local rates.
  MR. DELANY: By what authority do the police assist bum bailiff's and rent warners to collect back rents in Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Fair Rent Trials.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of fair rent cases that have been heard and determined by assistant Commissioners during the year ending 31st March, 1902, the number of Commissioners employed for this purpose, and the average reduction on the previous rents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of first term rents fixed was 2,242, and the average reduction on previous rents was 14 per cent. The number of second term rents fixed in the same period was 7,852, and the average reduction on previous or first term rents was 21 per cent. The number of lay assistant Commissioners engaged upon sub-commissions during the year was sixty-two.

  Land Purchase Applications.
  MR. T. W. Russell: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications under the Land Purchase Act of 1891 during the year ending 31st March, 1902, the number of sales completed in that year, and the average price paid by the purchasers; also the number of applications received by the Land Commission since the introduction of the Land Purchase Bill in March last.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of applications under the Acts of 1891 and 1896 lodged during the year ended 31st March last was 5,151. The number of sales completed in that period was 7,786. The average number of years purchase of the rent was 17·9. The number of applications for loans received between the 25th March when the Bill was introduced, and the 31st May was 1,011.

  Land Judges' Court.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  510
  of Ireland whether he can state the number of agricultural holdings sold in the Land Judges' Court during the year ending 31st March, 1902, distinguishing those sold under the fortieth section of the Act of 1896 and those sold under the ordinary powers of the Court; also the price paid by the purchasers and the amount added by the judge to the price as fixed by the Land Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There has not been sufficient time, in the brief interval since this Question appeared, to obtain information in respect of the full year mentioned. But during the eleven months ended 28th February last the number of holdings sold in the Land Judges' Court under Section 40 was 1,059. The amount of purchase money in guaranteed land stock was £262,794. The number of holdings sold otherwise than under Section 40 was 1,328, and the amount of purchase money in land stock £388,337. Information respecting the amount of cash added by the Land Judge is not readily available, and to procure it would, in the opinion of the Land Judge, make such a demand upon the time and labour of his staff as would seriously retard the working of the Court.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are not the figures referred to in the last part of my Question already in existence in the annual Report, which is overdue?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have given the hon. Member all the information that has reached me. An official would have to be specially detached from his normal work in order to get what is asked for.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But the figures are in the Report of the Land Commission, which is overdue. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into that?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, I will inquire.

  Killeevan National School Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education still maintain that all national teachers have been paid the balance of residual grant for the year 1900; and if so, will

  511
  he explain why the case of Mr. Edward Graham, late principal teacher of Killeevan National School, county Monaghan, who retired from the service on 30th June, 1900, never came under the new system of payment, and was therefore entitled to six months balance at the time of his resignation, but has not yet been paid any portion of it; and whether, as formerly promised, he will grant the appointment of an independent auditor to inquire fully into this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Acting on information previously supplied, I have informed the' House that the residual grant for the year 1900–1 had been paid in every case. I now learn that there have been some instances involving exceptional causes of delay. I have, therefore, asked for further particulars of these cases. The sum of £1 12s. 6d due to Mr. Graham was, through inadvertence, not paid. It has now been remitted to him.

  Irish Resident Magistrates.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been appointed resident magistrates in Ireland since the appointment of the present Government, and how many of them profess the Roman Catholic religion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There have been five such appointments since July, 1895. None of the officers appointed are Roman Catholics. Of other persons appointed to the Resident Magistracy in the same period, three are Roman Catholics.

  Annaghmore Riot Trials.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Annaghmore rioters who have been returned for trial will be tried at the Armagh Assizes, or whether it is intended by the Crown to move for a change of venue.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The accused were returned for trial to the Armagh Assizes. The question whether the venue should be changed will be considered when the depositions have been received in due course from the Crown Solicitor.

  Appeals under the Labourers (Ireland) Act.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the recent sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where appeals under the Labourers Acts were upheld because, as alleged, the Rural District Councils had not made out their case: and can he explain on what grounds this order is reversed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and why the petitioners are not required to prove their appeal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The petitions against nine cottages were upheld as stated, but in eight cases the petitions were dismissed, and in thirty-one others settlements were effected between the parties. The Judicial Committee invariably hears the evidence of the petitioners against a scheme, and of the District Council in support. The Committee, in allowing or disallowing an application, acts in pursuance of its statutory powers and does not announce reasons for its decisions.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Is it not the fact that the Committee, in giving judgment, said the Rural District Councils had not made out their case?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe the proceedings were public. I am told the Committee gave no reasons.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish labourers have no representation on the Privy Council, which is the ultimate court of appeal?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Rutland Street, Limerick, Post Office.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the vacancy caused by the death of the late postmaster of the branch post office at Rutland Street, Limerick, has been filled up, and, if so, by whom, what are the qualifications of the person appointed, and has the person so appointed a residence in the locality.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Miss Sarah O'Dell has been appointed sub-postmistress of the Rutland Street T.S.O., Limerick. She has had considerable business experience, and bears an excellent character; she was the best qualified candidate for the post, will devote her whole time to the duties, and offers suitable premises, of which she will become the tenant.
  MR. JOYCE: Has she a residence in the locality?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: She offers suitable premises; of course they must be in the locality.

  Education Bill.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with respect to Clauses 8 and 13 of the Education Bill, whether he will state with whom will rest the power to prescribe fees, if any, in schools not provided by the authority, and who will be responsible for their; collection; also, in whom will reside the authority to remit fees in a fee-paying school.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to Clauses 8 and 13 of the Education Bill, will he state whether the money will be advanced in lump sums to the managers of schools to be accounted for afterwards, or will the local authority directly pay the teachers' salaries and bills for school maintenance; and, in the former case, will the details of expenditure of grants from the local authority to schools, not provided by that authority, be subject to the audit of the Local Government Board Auditor.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, in the event of there being more than one Education Committee for elementary education, as provided for in Clause 12 of the Educational Bill, each such Committee will have the power to fix the expenditure in its own district.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the local authority will have power under Clause 8 of the Education Bill, to amalgamate neighbouring Schools belonging to the same denomination, in a locality, or to reorganise their departments; and will the local authority have power to give instructions at centres in such subjects as cookery, and manual instruction.
  MR. GODDARD: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, what are the incidental or consequential provisions of the scheme or provisional order, under Clause 16, sub-section (2), of the Education Bill; and do these affect the powers of the Committee, or only its constitution.
  MR. GODDARD: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, under Clause 8, sub-section 1, of the Education Bill, it will be the duty of managers to buy furniture in the case of a new denominational school or to replace furniture; and will the local authority have power to decide that such furniture shall be suitable for elementary school purposes.
  SIR THOMAS ROE: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under Clause 10 of the Education Bill, any elementary day school with an average attendance of thirty children be eligible at any time to claim recognition from the Board of Education.
  SIR THOMAS ROE: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the local authority have power, under Clause 7 of the Education Bill, to establish regulations for the management of schools as given at present under Section 15, under the Act of 1870, for their own schools and for schools not provided by the authority.
  SIR THOMAS ROE: To ask the Vice - President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the local authority have power, under Clause 8 of the Education Bill, to make regulations dealing with school staff, salaries, and qualifications of teachers.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in areas in which Part III. of the Education Bill is adopted, school teachers at present occupying positions on Borough or County Councils will be required to resign such positions as a condition of their continued employment by the local education authority; whether teachers employed in ex-board schools or in schools erected by the local education authority will be eligible for election to Borough or County Councils; and, if not, whether similar disabilities will apply to teachers engaged in other schools in the same areas.
  THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Owing to some misunderstanding my right hon. friend is not here, but I have been in communication with him about this long series of Questions, and we are certainly of opinion that it is extremely inconvenient to anticipate discussions in Committee stage by long interrogatories. I therefore hope hon. Members will reserve their Questions as far as possible till the Committee stage.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I would only point out that there are matters of detail on which the Bill gives no information whatever.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but it is extremely difficult to deal with them by way of Question and answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to the following Questions on the Paper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Could not the right hon. Centleman deal with these Questions in a general statement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In my opinion there are points in which the Bill will require to be modified, but they can be dealt with when we reach them in Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any Statement to make as to business?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine the most convenient course will be to adhere to our programme so far as it is not interfered with by the arrangement made last night between the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I, therefore, propose to take the Education Bill on Thursday.

MESSAGE TO THE LORDS—STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords requesting that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Brassey to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies.—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.): In the Chair.]

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS IV.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £86,580, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants in Aid."
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEcalled attention to the question of the Irish gold ornaments acquired by the British Museum. As the case was sub judice he could not enter into the merits, but he would like to point out that a large question was involved. After the British Museum authorities got possession of these ornaments the authority of the Irish law officers of the Crown was invoked. They did not act with

    517
    indecent haste, for they took two or three years to consider the point, but eventually they came to the conclusion that the ornaments were illegally held by the British Museum. The English law officers had come to the same conclusion. The Crown had made an application for the restoration of those ornaments as Crown property, and representations with the same object in view had also been made by the Treasury, but the British Museum still refused to give them up. Having disregarded the demand of the Crown against the advice of the British and Irish law officers there was no alternative but to go to law, and this course had been taken. Now the British Museum authorities were resisting this demand out of the pockets of the general taxpayer. That seemed to be an extraordinary situation. The taxpayers were to be put to very large legal costs, and the British Museum were to be supported in resisting this demand of the Crown at the expense of the taxpayers. He wished to ask the Treasury representatives on what grounds the costs of the British Museum were to be paid in this case by the State. It could hardly be said that the British Museum was a poverty stricken Corporation, and when they were acting against the advice of the law officers of England and Ireland, and resisting the Government of the country, he could not understand on what ground they could ask the Committee to defray their legal expenses.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There are no legal expenses under this Vote. They will come under the Vote for the law officers.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that on page 380 of the Estimates there was an item "law expenses £20."
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said it was perfectly correct, as stated by the Deputy Chairman, that no legal expenses for the trustees of the British Museum were included in this Vote.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid the Committee had no information as to what legal expenses were included
    518
    in that £20, and they were, therefore, quite at liberty to assume that this was the thin end of the wedge for obtaining authority to incur certain additional expenditure upon legal matters. The trial would come on very soon and the costs would have to be paid. As those costs would not be put in the Vote next year, in the public interest they had a right to take the only opportunity they would have of protesting against public money being expended for what they regarded as most improper purposes. He submitted that this item of £20 might be taken to cover certain expenses in connection with the trial now pending. The last report of the trustees was dated the 31st of March, 1900, but judging from the amount of money the British Museum had spent in increasing their collection he did not think there were any grounds for supposing that they were not able to pay their ordinary legal costs. He did not wish it to be thought that he objected to their improving their collection, for as far as expenditure of public money went in regard to the British Museum or any other museum he should be one of the first to assist and to co-operate in any expenditure of money for improving museums and collections of art treasures for he thought it was the best form of expenditure which they could have. He objected to the British Museum enriching their collection at the expense of Ireland, and he thought the trustees should be held liable for any illegal expenses which might be incurred. He was aware that the trustees could not be made liable personally, but when the taxpayers of this country voted £200,000 a year for the purpose of keeping up the British Museum it was a most unreasonable demand to ask them to provide an additional sum for legal expenses. The Treasury ought to realise that in this matter they were trenching upon somewhat dangerous ground, for they were setting up a precedent which they might find very awkward in the future. He wished to know whether the Treasury, under similar circumstances, would act in a similar way if an English or Scotch public body adopted a similar attitude to that which had been taken up by the British Museum. Supposing the National Museum of Scotland

    519
    desired to get back some valuable trove treasures winch were at present in the British Museum, and went to enormous legal expense endeavouring to recover those articles would the Treasury treat the Scotch Museum in the same way as they were now treating the British Museum? The Scotch Museum under those circumstances would have very much better grounds than the British Museum had, because there would be no bar in the, shape of the English and Scotch law officers. Supposing that the Irish law officers decided that certain meetings in Ireland were illegal, and people attended them and were brought to trial would the Treasury pay their expenses. If this precedent were established they would be bound to pay the expenses of prosecutions against the United Irish League. He did not know how far the Secretary to the Treasury was in a position to answer him but it was a very serious point, and in the interests of fair play in both countries he thought it was a question which ought to be seriously considered, and he hoped the Committee would support him in bringing the question forward.
    He would now pass on to one or two other matters. On page 374 of the Estimates there was a note which read—
    "The expenditure out of the Grants included in this Estimate will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General; but the unexpended balances (if any) will not be surrendered."
    He submitted that was a somewhat unusual proceeding. At the end of every year they had the Treasury balances which were supposed to be the amount unexpended of the money voted by Parliament, and he trusted that the same privileges in regard to these balances granted in the case of the British Museum would also be extended to the Scottish and Irish Museums. At the bottom of page 375 there was the following footnote—
    "The Director and Principal Librarian and five keepers of Departments are provided with official residences."
    He wished to know if in the Dublin and Scottish museum and libraries the same officials were also allowed residences, and if not, why not? He thought they ought to have the same treatment. He noticed on page 376 that there was an
    520
    item found, in addition to salaries, to attendants and servants for performing special duties. As far as he knew there was no similar provision made in the case of the Dublin Museum, and therefore they were entitled to ask what were those special services. He was glad that they had the opportunity of adding to their salaries in tins way, but he claimed that similar advantages should be extended to Ireland. On page 378 there was an item of £675 for the remuneration of persons not on the museum establishment, and he wished to know who those persons were, and what were the duties for which they obtained this remuneration? He did not think the Museum in Ireland was in a similar position. At the bottom of page 380 there was a footnote which read—
    "As opportunities arise during the re-arrangement of the collections, duplicate specimens are set aside for distribution among the local museums in the United Kingdom and for loans to exhibitions."
    It was useful to allow museums to exchange specimens, but he did not understand whether the arrangement with the British Museum contemplated an exchange of duplicate specimens or simply disposing of them without any exchange whatever. He wished to know if any of those specimens had gone across the Channel. In regard to the law costs in view of the trial, and the fact that the law officers of both countries were against the British Museum, he did not think it was fair that they should be allowed to indulge in such expenditure at the expense of the country. Therefore, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries and Wages) be reduced by £100,"—(Sir Thos. Esmonde.)
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Baronet had raised a number of points of detail to which he was afraid that he could not give an answer quite so fully as he should like, because he had had no notice of the hon. Baronet's intention of raising them. He was afraid he could not answer all the points raised in the comparisons made between the National Museums in Dublin and Edinburgh and the British Museum as definitely as he should like, but if the hon. Baronet

    521
    would give him notice he would make inquiries and communicate with him upon the subjects named. The reference he made to persons remunerated who were not on the museum establishment was explained in comparative fullness on the face of the Vote itself. The sum was for assistance required from gentlemen who were nut in the regular employment of the museum, in arranging special catalogues and other books which were required in the museum. The hon. Baronet would readily understand that it was desirable that the museum authorities should have some money provided for the purpose of obtaining assistance outside the ordinary staff of the museum, and arrangements had been made from time to time to procure such assistance in cataloguing and making readily available for the public use the various collections in the museum. He was not personally aware of the kind of arrangement adopted, but he agreed with the hon. Baronet that all collections ought to have every precaution taken for their preservation, and he could not believe that any reasonable precaution had been neglected. He did not complain of the constant comparisons made between the British Museum and the National Museum in Dublin, but perhaps the hon. Baronet would excuse him for saying that there was some inconvenience in discussing the Dublin collection under the Vote for the British Museum. [An HON. MEMBER: Perhaps we shall not get another chance.]
    With regard to the alleged unsatisfactory distribution of duplicate specimens, he was certain that any application from the authorities in Dublin would receive the most favourable consideration of the authorities of the British Museum. The number of specimens in any one year was not very large. He had hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, who was a Trustee of the British Museum, would have been present, as, on a previous occasion at any rate, he intended to take the opportunity afforded by this vote to make a statement on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum, and doubtless he would have done his best to answer the questions which had been put. With regard to the note that unexpended balances would not be surrendered at
    522
    the end of the year, it should be explained that the old system was that if the Trustees of one of these institutions did not spend the whole of their grant-in-aid in a particular year, they had to surrender the balance to the Exchequer; they were not allowed to accumulate the money. That was obviously a most wasteful, inconvenient, and unsatisfactory regulation. It led to the Trustees buying up to the limit of their grant whatever happened to be in the market, without regard to whether or not it was the most useful, and it prevented them saving money for more expensive purchases, so that when the more expensive articles came into the market they had no reserve upon which to draw, with the result that, unless they could secure it out of the current grant the article was lost to the National Collection. For some years now it had been he practice that it should be within the discretion of the Trustees to spend so much of the grant-in-aid for purchases as they thought fit and to keep the balance and spend it in subsequent years for the same purpose. Balances of any of their ordinary expenditure, were, of course, subject to the ordinary rules of audit.
    Then, to come to the question of the Celtic gold ornaments, the hon. Baronet had recognised that any discussion on this subject at the present time was necessarily severely limited by the fact that the matter was before the courts and was to be brought to trial. The action was at the suit of the Crown, proceeding in the name of the Attorney-General, against the Trustees of the British Museum, to have these gold ornaments declared to be treasure trove, and, therefore, the property of the Crown, the object being, if that declaration was obtained, to restore these ornaments to Dublin. The only question raised by the hon. Baronet was whether, under these circumstances, the Crown was justified in defraying the expenses of the Trustees in defending the action, and how far that principle was to be carried. He could hardly he expected to lay down a general rule. Questions of this kind, happily, rarely arose, and they must be judged on their merits as they arose. The present case was a very peculiar one, in fact, he believed that such a case had

    523
    never before arisen in the whole history of our National Collections. As a general rule, there was the most cordial co-operation on the part of the Trustees of the British Museum, and the Trustees of other national collections recognised that on many occasions, and often with considerable success, the Trustees of the British Museum had helped them to secure objects specially interesting to the particular country in which the institution was situated. In the present case the Trustees had purchased, under circumstances which had been laid fully before the House of Commons, certain gold ornaments. The question of the exact position of those ornaments was a very difficult and intricate one. The Trustees were not acting in defence of any personal action of their own, but, as a statutory authority in pursuit of what they considered to be their statutory duty, they had felt it necessary to retain these articles until the matter had been brought to trial and an authoritative decision obtained from the Courts. Under these circumstances, the Treasury thought it was a case in which, the matter being of great public interest, the costs on both sides might fairly be met out of public funds. He was sure the hon. Baronet would be the last person to wish to see the Trustees devoting money, which ought to be used in purchasing additions to their collections, to the carrying out of a law suit. As to whether if any other public authority understood an action the Treasury would pay the costs, each case must be decided on its merits, but it would be recognised that there was a difference between the case of a public body commencing an action on its own account, and that of a body defending an action brought against it on behalf of the Crown. This was the first case of that kind; it was a very important one, and he hoped it would soon be settled in a way which would give satisfaction to all who were anxious that these Irish ornaments should find their place in the national collection in Dublin.
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) took the Chair.]
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the Secretary to the Treasury had omitted to state certain circumstances which would have robbed the Trustees of
    524
    the British Museum of the sympathy with which he was anxious they should be regarded. The question of these gold ornaments and their custody had been discussed for many years, and the Trustees, instead of acting straightforwardly, had shifted their ground of defence from time to time. They first of all said that Ireland had no claim whatever, and then, when it was found that the First Lord of the Treasury and a great many Members were in sympathy with the Irish demand, they said they had no power to relinquish the custody of the ornaments. He then introduced a Bill to give them the power, and they thereupon again changed their ground, and one of their supporters was most active in preventing the Bill passing. The legal officers of the Crown then expressed the opinion that the Trustees had no legal right to hold the ornaments, and they once more shifted their ground and said they did not care a snap of the fingers for the law officers either in England or in Ireland. Thereupon the First Lord of the Treasury said that an action would be instituted at the instance of the Crown, and the Trustees now claimed to have their costs paid. He himself had many actions brought against him at the instance of the Crown, but he had never asked to have his costs paid for him, and if he had he would not have got them. He asked what was the exact position of this law suit, and what prospect there was of an early settlement being arrived at. These ornaments were discovered in Ireland; they belonged to Ireland; and they were twenty times more interesting to the average person in Ireland than to the average Englishman. The whole affair is an illustration of the absurdity of attempts to manage by the British House of Commons matters of a more or less trivial character in reference to Ireland.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Solicitor General was unable to say definitely when the case would come on. He hoped it would be tried before the Long Vacation, but it was not certain that that would be possible. There was a great deal of technical evidence to be obtained and prepared, and, while the Treasury were as anxious as any one that no time should be lost, it was most important that they should have all the evidence necessary before the case come to trial.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid that while nobody would dispute that these beautiful Celtic ornaments should be largely represented in Ireland, the fact remained that Dublin already had a magnificent collection of similar ornaments—in fact, a collection which was unique. If the view of the hon. Baronet were adopted, it would open up a very awkward problem, because then the museum of each nation would consist simply of articles belonging to that particular nation, and that would be a great disaster. He would be extremely sorry if none of these ornaments were exhibited in England, and whether or not they were proved to be, technically speaking, treasure trove, and it would be a misfortune if any action on the part of the Government brought about that result.
    DR. FARQUHARSONcould not agree with the suggestion that there should be official residences attached to the museum in Ireland. He was entirely opposed to the principle. Not the least valuable recommendation of the late museum Committee was that the official residences attached to the South Kensington Museum should be abolished. Such buildings were a source of great danger from fire to the priceless collections contained in these institutions. No doubt the British Museum was a good old-fashioned solid building, and the danger there was much less, but it would be unfortunate if any sanction were given to the extension of that bad system. The principle of not surrendering the unexpended balances was an excellent one. It was absurd that the Trustees should be obliged to spend the money simply because if they did not spend it in that particular year they would lose it.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid there were two different questions at issue—one the conduct of the authorities of the British Museum, and the other the wider and more important question of whether any of these ornaments were to remain in London or the whole of them be sent to Dublin. In
    526
    the British Museum there was a collection of gold ornaments of all countries, and it was most important that Irish ornaments should take their proper place in that collection. Persons came to the British Museum from all quarters of the earth to study and compare the handiwork of different nations, and it would be a great misfortune if Ireland were not properly represented in that collection, as it would probably give foreigners a low opinion of Irish handiwork. The general argument of the hon. Baronet would carry him further, for if these Irish gold ornaments should, for the reasons stated, be transferred to Dublin, all the other Irish articles in the British Museum should also be sent there. These particular gold ornaments were, he believed, unique, and he understood that there was a serious question as to whether they were Irish at all. A strong argument had been put forward and maintained on high authority that they were only Irish because an Irish king acquired them in a raid upon England. If it was a case of spoiling the Saxon they were not Irish at all, and, if that was so, he thought London had a certain claim to reparation. He confessed that with regard to the conduct of the British Museum Trustees in relation to these ornaments, he could not see that hon. Members opposite had any special grievance. It was known in Ireland that they could be bought, and, after an interval of about a couple of years, they were purchased for £600 by the Trustees of the British Museum and placed in the Museum. He thought the fact was that the British Museum authorities bought the ornaments before Irishmen found out that there was any special and unique value to be put upon them. In connection with this matter a question of "treasure trove" came forward, and that would be decided in the courts of law. The Museum Trustees had been attacked for not accepting the opinions of the law officers, but these opinions depended upon certain matters of fact which were in dispute. It was stated that the ornaments were treasure-trove articles, but that was challenged. The facts would have to be gone into in court, and until judgment had been given in the case it was not possible to express an opinion upon that matter.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that he would not deal with the sentimental side of the question, because that had been fully stated by hon. Members from Ireland. Nor would he follow the hon. Member for the Partick Division into the interesting historical problem where the ornaments came from. If they were not of Irish make, and if there was nothing in the style and manner of design to indicate Irish origin, he should have thought that they were more likely to have been captured in the raids which were sometimes made by the Irish naval forces on the coasts of Gaul. It was extremely likely that if they were not of Irish origin they were Scandinavian-rat her than English. The point he wished to refer to was the relative value of having historical antiquities of this kind placed in the British Museum or in a museum in Ireland. He did not understand that hon. Members from Ireland argued that the other gold ornaments in the British Museum should necessarily be carried across to Ireland. He did not think that it would be their interest to take that view of the case. Every patriotic Irishman would desire that in a great collection like that of the British Museum ancient Irish art should be worthily represented. The question was whether these articles should find their place in London or in Dublin. The Committee of course knew that no branch of knowledge had in recent years made more progress than that of prehistoric archaeology, and that there was no branch of ancient art pursued with more zeal and by which more had been done, than the elucidation of history and of ancient civilisation through historic monuments which had come down to us. Anyone who specialised in these matters desired above all things that he should have the largest possible number of specimens of the same art and work brought together in the same place. Therefore archaeologists from Germany, France, or Italy who came to the United Kingdom for the purpose of pursuing studies in ancient Irish art, would very much prefer to have the largest accumulation in Dublin. The investigator would do far more in the interest of science and history by having those ornaments placed in Dublin, where they could be compared with other ornaments of the same kind. In the interest of
    528
    archæological science, he ventured to submit to the Committee that it was a not unimportant consideration that these ornaments would be better placed in Dublin than in London.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the logical conclusion to be drawn from what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen was that all Irish ornaments, not only in the British Museum but elsewhere, should be added to those in Dublin.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he did not in the least intend to say that. What he said was that no patriotic Irishman would desire that a great collection like that at the British Museum should be deficient in a proper representation of Irish art.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the conclusion he came to from the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that they would be more useful for scientific research in Dublin. The question of the origin of these ornaments was really outside the scope of the present discussion. One of the most competent archæologists in the British Isles had pointed out that the only analogous type known in this country was discovered within ten miles of the City of London. He understood that the question now before the law courts would be settled in a short time. The trustees of the British Museum had been very much blamed for their action in this matter, but he had no sympathy with those who complained. They found that these things were offered for sale in the open market by a dealer. The trustees of the Museum bought them at a price which was not excessive. He ventured to say that if the Museum had not succeeded in capturing these things at that moment they would have gone to people who are on the outlook for such articles in Berlin or Copenhagen, or possibly to private collectors in Paris and elsewhere who would have been delighted to get them. His opinion was that the Museum authorities had at any rate saved these things for the British Isles. Whether they were to be retained in the British Museum, or sent to the museum at Dublin, was a question which he supposed the law courts would settle

    529
    before Christmas. He hoped that what had happened in this case would open the eyes of the authorities in Ireland to the fact that it was necessary to be very prompt when antiquities were offered for sale in the market. Before the British Museum bought this collection, the articles composing it had passed from hand to hand of many peasants, until they came into the possession of a dealer, and finally found their resting-place in the British Museum. At any moment during that period the Royal Irish Academy, which had correspondents of extraordinary ability all over Ireland, might have become aware of the existence of these articles, and have-had the question of their ownership tried there and then in the Irish courts. He had never concealed his opinion and hope that the collection would stay in London, but whatever the outcome might be, he trusted the Royal Irish Academy would never again allow such things to be handed about and sold before taking action for their recovery, which they were legally bound to do.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid that an hon. Gentleman who had spoken seemed to fear that they wished to take away the whole collection to Dublin from the British Museum. They were quite willing to leave the British Museum as many of the ornaments as possible, because they were naturally interested that specimens of the ancient work and art of Ireland should be represented in London, to convey to the mind and eye of Englishmen an impression of the great advance in the rarest and most delicate arts of civilisation attained in Ireland by their ancestors, a doubt about which was sometimes expressed. The question at the present time was whether these ornaments belonged to Ireland or to England. An hon. Member had gone very far back in history to prove that they had originally been brought from England to Ireland. He hoped that that argument would not be brought before the courts. His hon. friend the Member for East Clare had been blamed for making an attack upon the trustees of the British Museum, but he had done nothing of the sort, either upon them as a body or as individuals. The trustees
    530
    in present charge of those articles believed they had a right to them, and the Royal Irish Academy thought they had a right to them, and the latter, when both Irish and English declared that they should go back to Ireland, believed that they had a right to insist that there should be no greater delay in sending the articles back to Ireland. This question had been raised in the House for six years, and he hoped that, as they had been informed, the matter would be settled before Christmas, and the articles sent back to Ireland. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Chorley in what he said as to the authorities in Ireland. Undoubtedly they had been lax in their duty, and he hoped that what the noble Lord had said in reference to their negligence would have some effect on that body, and that in future they would take more precautions in securing possession of treasure trove.
    MR. POWERsaid that the Irish party and the whole of the country were deeply indebted to the hon. Members who had pressed this subject on the attention of Parliament with so much pertinacity. It might be said that this was a sentimental matter, but sentiment was an important fact in the history of a nation. He ventured to say that if these articles, which were of great beauty, were returned to Ireland, for one person who looked at them now in the British Museum there would be twenty in Dublin. It had been said that the trustees of the British Museum should not be criticised on their action in this matter, but the trustees had changed their ground in the most conspicuous and extraordinary way several times. He hoped that the Treasury would come to the assistance of the Irish authorities in respect of the law costs, as they had done in the case of the British Museum trustees. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would concur with the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Chorley, and he trusted they would do something to quicken the authorities in Ireland to prevent articles of great national importance getting into private hands. There was a small charge for opening the reading room beyond the regular hours. He wanted to know the necessity for that. Then, was the

    531
    Museum insured, even for a small part of its value; or was it not competent for the Crown to do so? He saw an item for the salary of the Electrician of the British Museum. He did not grudge that gentleman his salary, but he wished they could get a loan of him for the House of Commons. There were some parts of the House where the light was so had that they could not see to read.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsaid there was no doubt as to the nationality of these ornaments. In the county of Londonderry there was not a person, from the oldest to the youngest, who did not take the most profound interest in them and who could not tell the place where they were found. They were perfectly sure they were Irish ornaments.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, in answer to the hon. Member for Water-ford East, said that the British Museum was not insured. It was not the practice of the Government to insure any of the property of the State. They were content to be their own insurees. He hoped the Committee would now be allowed to get on with the other business.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that their complaint was not against the Trustees of the British Museum for fighting for those ornaments, but it was extremely bad business for the Treasury to encourage a great expenditure of public money in the fight. The Treasury were, in fact, to blame for the position in which the Royal Irish Academy and the British Museum found themselves. They, in Ireland, were perfectly willing to give the British Museum many Irish ornaments, but they wanted a certain number from this collection found in the county of Londonderry to complete their own collection in Dublin. All they had in Ireland of any value was their collection of gold ornaments. Everything else of value had gone abroad. Upon the point of the origin of these gold ornaments, they were Irish by nature, and one very eminent English archæologist had declared that they were "unique Irish gold ornaments." When, however, it was found that there was a chance of their going back to Ireland, the same eminent archæologist said they were not Irish gold ornaments at all. He thought the
    532
    Irish authorities, in regard to this business, deserved the strongest condemnation, and he hoped when the question was finally settled, steps would be taken by Parliament to make it impossible that such a thing could occur again with regard to Irish gold ornaments that might be found in the future.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEcalled attention to the extraordinary nature of these proceedings. Two public bodies, each kept up by public money, were entering into an expensive lawsuit. They were both advised by the law officials of the Crown, who would no doubt also be engaged in the case and receive high fees. Both the law officers of the Crown and the Treasury were agreed that these ornaments belonged to Ireland, but another public body, the Trustees of the British Museum, was going to law upon the matter, and the public would have to pay the costs of both sides. It seemed to him that the advice of the law officers of the Crown should have decided this matter, and not merely have been the prelude to an expensive lawsuit. He would like to know what the cost of the legal proceedings would be, and what fees would be received by the law officers of the Crown.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could give no answer to either question. It was impossible to give the information for which the hon. Member asked.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESdid not consider it right to enter into the question of what the law officers of the Crown received. They were employed to say what in their opinion was right or wrong. This matter was more the fault of the Secretary to the Treasury or the Secretary of State for the Home Department. They were the heads of the Departments interested—the law officers of the Crown were only subordinates. He rose particularly to ask a question with regard to certain grants in aid under this appropriation. As he understood, where unexpended balances were not surrendered there was no proper audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General—all he required was the receipt of the authority for the whole sum in regard to the grant in aid; as he had no hope

    533
    of obtaining the balance, all he wanted was the voucher for the total sum. Under those circumstances it was misleading to say that grants in aid were subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There was an exceedingly large sum for appropriations in aid running through the whole account, which, in his opinion, certainly required some audit.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid vouchers were required. What was not required was the surrender of the balance.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the natural desire of the Irish Members with regard to these gold ornaments, was that they should find a home in Dublin. He appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury to use his influence to get this matter settled as quickly as possible. It had been dragging, on for years which was not surprising when the money for both these litigating authorities was being found by the taxpayers. The unanimous opinion of the law officers of the Crown being that these ornaments ought to be returned to Ireland, some arrangement whereby they could be handed over should be come to as quickly as possible.
    MR. O'NEILLsaid he supported the hon. Baronet opposite in his desire to obtain possession of these ornaments for Ireland. He had always felt that this was another grievance of Ireland that these ornaments should have been taken away, and that the Irish Government did not retain possession of ornaments found in that country.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the whole proceeding with regard to these ornaments seemed to him extraordinary. The amount paid altogether for them was £600; the litigation that would ensue would cost some £5,000 or £6,000. That was a most preposterous state of things. He understood the Trustees had no objection to hand these ornaments over, except that they had paid £600 for them.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to dissent.
    MR. LLOYD-CEORGEsaid the Government had the whip hand of the Trustees, because they could stop the supplies, and he thought the Treasury ought to say that these were ornaments which belonged to Ireland and ought to be handed over to her.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that the Trustees were prevented by the statute of their foundation from giving up what had passed into their possession.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that when a Bill was introduced empowering the Trustees to relinquish these ornaments it was opposed by the noble Lord on behalf of the Trustees.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that disposed of the bona fides of the Trustees in the matter. Like all other Trustees, they were not allowed to give up any property, but no one would condemn them for acting on the advice of the law officers of the Crown.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought it was foolish to throw away so much money in litigation like this. The power one statute gave, another could take away, and it would be well if the Trustees of the British Museum consented to a Bill being passed giving them the power to hand these ornaments over. These ornaments were found in Ireland by a peasant farmer and sold by him to a dealer, and if the Irish authorities had managed these matters as they ought, these ornaments would never have crossed the Channel. The Trustees of the British Museum were right in buying them, but the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was that they belonged to Ireland, and the Treasury had consented to their being handed over. The way to avoid all friction was for the Trustees to consent to a Bill being passed to give them power to do that which they could not, at present, do.
    MR. DILLONsaid this controversy had occupied considerable public time, and the position at present was that two great public Departments of the State were about to enter into an enormously expensive litigation in order to decide whether the Trustees of the

    535
    British Museum should surrender ornaments worth £600, which the First Lord of the Treasury had declared two years previously ought to be returned to Ireland.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the object of the action was to secure a declaration that these gold ornaments were the property of the Crown, and not of the Trustees. If the Government were successful in obtaining that declaration, the ornaments would be restored to Dublin.
    MR. DILLONsaid that, if the action were not successful, the merits of the question of their restoration to Dublin would be unaffected. The result would then be that, after this great expense in litigation, the Government would have to introduce legislation, which they might do at first. If the Government were in earnest, the threat of legislation would be enough to settle the question.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that all this loss of time and probable expenditure was the result of not taking his advice three years previously. Three or four years ago, encouraged by the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, he introduced a simple Bill of one clause, giving power to the Trustees of the British Museum to hand over these ornaments, if they chose, to the Dublin Museum. That Bill was blocked by the
    noble Lord opposite and his friends, and the result was this waste of time, and consequent waste of money, in litigation. He supported the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone that a Bill should be passed by the Government to end this matter, and save the taxpayers this enormous expenditure.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he could not make any promise at the moment about introducing legislation. But the very action which was now so much criticised was taken on the representations of hon. Members from Ireland. He would consult with his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether anything could be done on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for South Tyrone and others.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he had much sympathy with the demand of the Irish Members, but he failed to see how the Government could go any further than they had done in the matter.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEfelt that he must take a division, but at the same he desired to express his appreciation of the tone of the debate.
    (5.0.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 215. (Division List No. 221.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Grant, Corrie

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Clean, Eugene

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Crombie, John William

    Curdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Asher, Alexander

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Hammond, John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Delany, William

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Austin, Sir John

    Dillon, John

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Donelan, Capt. A.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife West)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Blake, Edward

    Dunn, Sir William

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Boland, John

    Elibank, Master of

    Hutton, Alfred E (Morley)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Emmott, Alfred

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

    Joicey, Sir James

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    Burt, Thomas

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Caine, William Sproston

    Ffrench, Peter

    Joyce, Michael

    Caldwell, James

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Kitson, Sir James

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

    Carew, James Lawrence

    Fuller J. M. F.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Gilhooly, James

    Leamy, Edmund

    Cawley, Frederick

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

    Leng, Sir John

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

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Levy, Maurice

    O'Dowd, John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Lewis, John Herbert

    O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Lloyd-George, David

    O'Malley, William

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. Northants

    Lonsdale John Brownlee

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Lundon, W.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Partington, Oswald

    Tennant, Harold, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

    Thomas, Alfred Glamorgan, E.

    M'Cann, James

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    M'Rae, George

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Thompson, Dr. E C (Mon'gh'n, N

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Tomkinson, James

    M'Kean, John

    Price, Robert John

    Wallace, Robert

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Rea, Russell

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Reckitt, Harold James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North

    Mooney, John J.

    Reddy, M.

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Murphy, John

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rigg, Richard

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Newnes, Sir George

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

    Nolan, C. L. John P, (Galway, N.

    Roche, John

    Wilson, John, Durham. Mid.)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wolff, Gastay Wilhelm

    Norton, Capt. Cecil, William

    Runciman, Walter

    Wynduam-Quin, Major W. H.

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork

    Russell, T. W.

    Young, Samuel

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

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and the Marquess of Hamilton.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hain, Edward

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Agnew, Sir Andrew, Noel

    Gripps, Charles Alfred

    Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Helder, Augustus

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

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Henderson, Alexander

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger'ld W (Leeds

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hope, J. F. Sheffield (Br'ghts'de

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Durning-Lawrence Sir Edwin

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Banes, Major George Edward

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Honldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Bartley, George, C. T.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hoult, Joseph

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham

    Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Bignold, Arthur

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (M'nc'r.

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. B.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Finch, George H.

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Kennaway Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Brassey, Albert

    Fletcher, Bight Hn. Sir Henry

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Bull, William James

    Flower, Ernest

    Kimber, Henry

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

    Knowles, Lees

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w

    Foster, Philip S. (W'rwick, S. W.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Carlile, William Walter

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

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.

    Gore, Hn. GRC. Ormsby-(Salop

    Lawson, John Grant

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Colliding, Edward Alfred

    Leveson-Gower, Fred'rick N. S.

    Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r

    Grenfell, William Henry

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

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'uthanipt'n

    Gretton, John

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Clive, Capt. Percy A.

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

    Coddington, Sir William

    Groves, James Grimble

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Maedona, John dimming

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gunter, Sir Robert

    MacIver, David (Liverpool

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbr'gh W.

    538

    539

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Randles, John S.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

    Rankin, Sir James

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfriessh.

    Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Moon, Edward Thomas Pacy

    Renwick, George

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Morgan, Hn. Fred. (M'nmthsh.

    Ridley, Hon. M W. (Staly bridge

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Webb, Colonel William George

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

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Round, James

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Whiteley, H (Asht'n-und. Lyne

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Nicol Donald Ninian

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

    Parker, Gilbert

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Percy, Earl

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

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

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

    Younger, William

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Start, Hon. Humphrey Napier

    Purvis, Robert

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed a little alarm at the contemplated removal by the trustees of the Museum of documents and material in their possession to Hendon. To a large number of people the British Museum was a workshop, and there students, historians, men of letters, and journalists found material for their researches, and to these such removal would probably cause considerable inconvenience. He quite appreciated how the indiscriminate accumulation by the Museum authorities had reached a point that made housing difficult, but removal should be very judiciously done. He also took occasion to renew an often-made protest against the system by which the museum, without purchase, levied contributions for their collection from publishers. Men and women who made their living by letters were as a rule a very poor body. The British Museum had the right to demand a free copy of every book—he was not sure whether it was not two or three copies—from every author or publisher. If they were compelled to buy three copies no doubt they would get a great deal of rubbish, but then they would not be in a position to extort blackmail from those who were unable to pay. He renewed
    540
    this protest, not with any great hope of having it attended to, but he pointed it out as one of the many absurdities in regard to the way the State treated those people.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELLquestioned as a matter of order whether, as the removal to Hendon could only be effected after legislation, the subject could be discussed in Committee of Supply.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had carefully considered that point before he addressed the Committee, and he thought it would be found that, as this Vote dealt with the salaries and wages of the British Museum authorities, it was quite in order to discuss their policy.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think it would be out of order to discuss anything which requires legislation, but as a matter of administration I think the discussion is in order.
    MR. SOARESdesired to offer a few remarks from the point of view of economy, because he thought they were all interested in that at the present time. He found that the amount of money which would have to be spent at Hendon, in connection with the removal of these newspapers was

    541
    £18,000. If a person went to the British Museum and asked to see a newspaper it Mould have to be brought from Hendon, and the reader could not see it until the following day. That would cause a considerable amount of expense to the public not only with regard to carriage but labour as well, and he thought the question ought to be considered whether or not it was necessary that this expense should be incurred at the present time. He understood that since 1895 the British Museum authorities had purchased all the houses and gardens on the east, north, and west sides of the British Museum, and that when the leases fell in, as they would very soon, the British Museum authorities would have no less than thirteen acres of land at their disposal, in the midst of which the British Museum stood. Would it not therefore be wiser, instead of removing these newspapers to Hendon, and incurring the expense of, £18,000, to wait until the leases fell in and then see if some arrangement could not be made by which the newspapers would be still kept at the Museum.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is with much reluctance that the Treasury have consented to the removal of these volumes to Hendon. We resisted this proposal at first, but the trustees of the British Museum satisfied us that the present buildings were extremely crowded, and that it was very uneconomical to use so much space as was required for this purpose on a, very expensive and valuable site like Bloomsbury especially when it is remembered that the kind of objects which it is proposed to put at Hendon are things very rarely required, and the removal of which, it is believed, will cause very little inconvenience to the public. I quite agree that anything which is in at all frequent demand by readers and the public must be kept in Bloomsbury, and housed in the parent institution, but the objects which it is proposed to transfer to Hendon are back-files of provincial newspapers, and it is extremely rare that any of these newspapers are asked for. Only matters of that kind, which are very rarely needed, will be transferred to Hendon, and we have required a pledge from the trustees that they will use such powers as they possess to destroy such matter as has no interest now, and which can have no
    542
    interest in the future. Among the printed matter are copies of every Christmas card published; and, I think, when space is so valuable, Christmas cards, however interesting they might be, are not worthy of preservation with every other production of a prolific Press. I do not think we need keep a copy of every item of printed matter which is produced in this nation. I can assure the Committee that the trustees themselves and the Treasury would view with the greatest jealousy anything which lessened the convenience of the public who use the great collection at the British Museum. Only such things will be transferred to Hendon as can be removed without inconvenience, and I would venture to remind the Committee that this transfer can only be made by legislation, with the authority of the House; and I think it would be more convenient that the details should be reserved, as regards the collection to be transferred, until the Bill sanctioning the policy of the transfer is before the House. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool raised another question, which, I think, he will scarcely expect me to go into. I cannot undertake to enter into the discussion of the treatment men of literary ability receive at the hands of the British Museum authorities, and that is a task from which I confess I should shrink. I do not think, whatever may be our feelings in this matter, that we can expect the authorities of the British Museum to give up the light they have had from their very foundation, which is a Parliamentary one, to require free copies of books. At anyrate, legislation would be required to make any change in regard to this matter, and as any proposal of tin's kind would be a very controversial matter, it would have very little chance of passing this year.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid a great many other things might be removed to Hendon with less public inconvenience than newspapers, which were frequently required for reference, and sometimes very speedy reference. If those desirous of making references had to wait twenty-four hours while huge volumes were being brought from Hendon to London, an amount of inconvenience Mould be caused which he

    543
    thought the public would resent. He had had occasion to refer to provincial newspapers in order to ascertain the accurate record of speeches made in the country by Members of this House, and twenty-four or thirty-six hours delay might have caused considerable inconvenience. The time might come when the speeches of the hon. Member opposite, recorded in the provincial press, might be objects of interest to Members on this side of the House and to others. That kind of historical research had been more or less indulged in by Members on both sides of the House and it might be indulged in with advantage in future, but if the newspapers were housed at Hendon, the inquiry would be considerably delayed. They were voting a considerable sum of money for the purpose of providing a depôt at Hendon, but the trustees of the British Museum had obtained possession of an area, nearly thirteen acres in extent, adjoining the present buildings, on which there would be ample room to house the newspapers for many years to come. It seemed to him a strange policy to spend a large sum on building premises at Hendon as a storage place for newspapers, which, if they were to be of value for reference, should be in a place where they could be consulted as quickly as possible.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The need of space is urgent at the present time, and the trustees cannot wait.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid they could send out to Hendon some of the Christmas cards and other things to which reference had been made, so that there might be space for the newspapers.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid his hon. friend on the Treasury Bench had referred to a Bill which was brought forward two years ago with the object of transferring to the provinces the newspapers which had collected at the British Museum. That was not regarded with favour by the House. Did not what the hon Gentleman said convey the idea that the Bill was brought in on the initiative of the trustees of the British Museum?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not at the Treasury then.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid his hon. friend was not responsible for the policy of the Treasury then. But he had a very great complaint against the Treasury because it intercepted £8,000, which was at present obtained as rent for the land adjoining the present museum.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdissented.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the amount was appropriated as a grant in aid. The museum authorities wished to obtain authority to build on that ground, but the Treasury said, "You must bring in a Bill and obtain for yourself the right to remove the newspapers." Of course the Bill did not commend itself to the House of Commons, and in defeating the Bill they defeated, not the trustees of the British Museum, but the Treasury. The trustees had been represented as desiring to get rid of the newspapers, but they desired to do nothing of the kind.
    MR. GODDARDsaid he understood that an Act of Parliament was necessary before the newspapers could be transferred. There was on the Estimates a sum of £3,000, which was to be devoted to the purpose' of providing a building for the storage of the newspapers at Hendon. That was really putting the cart before the horse. Why should they provide a place to receive the papers before they had an Act of Parliament authorising their transfer? Would anything appear on the Estimates next year for the building in course of erection? He presumed that ultimately the cost of maintaining the building would come under the British Museum Vote.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was a sum of money taken in another Vote to carry out a policy which required the approval of Parliament by legislation. That legislation was now in another place, and would in due course come down here. All he wished to ask the Committee was that they should discuss the matter of the policy of the legislation on the Bill itself rather than on the Vote for the

    545
    money, Hon. Members would understand that in framing the Estimates the Treasury had proceeded on the assumption that the Bill would eventually pass.
    MR. GODDARDasked whether the ultimate cost would come on this Vote.
    MR. AUSTEN GHAMBERLAIN: The ultimate cost of the land or bindings will never fall on this Vote, but any staff which is required will, of course, be provided by this Vote.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that provision should be made for the preservation of provincial newspapers, and rendering them easy of access for reference, as many of them were better than the London Press. Could not the freehold property acquired some time ago adjacent to the Museum be utilised in the near future for the display of the extremely fine collection of sepulchral and monumental sculptures, highly praised by the late Sir Charles Newton, at present stored in cellars where they could not be seen to advantage. When these came to be properly staged it was obvious that they would require a great deal of space, and, of course, it stood to reason that some distinction should be drawn between the things which we could afford to store at what might be called the Bloomsbury rate and the Hendon rate.
    MR. MARKHAMsaid that twelve months ago he wanted to ascertain certain facts which could only be found in South African newspapers. He went to the British Museum, and was told that the South African papers which he wanted were not kept in the Museum. He made an unsuccessful quest all over London for the papers, but was told that the papers had been regularly sent to the British Museum. He again went to the Museum, and was informed that the papers were not there. He asked that a search might be made, and the result was that the papers were found in a cellar where they had been lying for years, but had not been catalogued on account of the expense, nor had they been bound. It appeared that the
    546
    Museum authorities had funds formerly granted to them for binding these newspapers, but for twelve years comprising the most interesting part of the history of the South African colonies and republics, there was no money for cataloguing or binding these records. That was an instance of incredible meanness on the part of the Treasury. The removal of these papers to Hendon would be a great inconvenience. It might be interesting to state that during those twelve years not a single member of the British public had asked to consult a single paper from South Africa in the British Museum. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to give a pledge that those valuable papers should be catalogued.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought it was quite clear that there must be some system of selection in regard to the preservation or destruction of the vast mass of papers and materials—including Christmas cards—which the British Museum was not only entitled to receive but required to accept under the Copyright Act. The purpose of the collections in the British Museum was to afford an opportunity for reference when such a necessity occurred, and that ought to be provided for. That necessity had been foreseen; for eight years £200,000 had been provided for acquiring the buildings adjacent to the Museum. He understood the Secretary to the Treasury to say that the removal of the newspapers to Hendon had been done at the insistence of the British Museum authorities, and that the Treasury had resisted it as long as they could.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not think there was any difference between the Trustees and the Treasury on this matter. The Treasury had objected to the housing of very bulky articles on an expensive piece of land in Bloomsbury when they thought they could be quite as well housed on a less expensive piece of land at Hendon.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the hon. Gentleman's remarks had certainly suggested to his mind that the Treasury had resisted the desire of the Museum

    547
    authorities to remove some of the papers to Hendon. He granted that there must necessarily be authority to decide what papers were to be kept and what destroyed, and what not destroyed should be kept in the Museum and what elsewhere. But who was to exercise the choice between Bloomsbury and Hendon? It appeared to him that it was not the Museum authorities but rather the Treasury which had exercised that choice, although the Trustees alone had the knowledge and the responsibility. If the Trustees desired to fill the space available in the Museum with some of these newspapers, the Treasury might for once allow them to have the decision of the matter.
    MR. CAINEsaid that the question of stimulating the Treasury to support the British Museum was a hardy annual. He remembered it twenty years ago. There was no doubt that there were vast numbers of treasures which would never be shown until a large and comprehensive annexe was built to the museum. On the other hand, many of these treasures were not required in the British Museum, it was quite time that some careful inquiry should be made with the view of distributing some of these treasures among the various museums and art schools in England, Ireland and Scotland. There was one particular department or the greatest possible importance to British art and trade which had never been properly displayed in the British Museum. If anyone went into a print-seller's shop in London he would find that 80 per cent. of the specimens of engraving and colour printing were the work of French, Italian, and German artists. In colour printing especially Germany and America were getting ahead of us. In Dresden, Florence, New York or Chicago, the prints and the specimens of colour work were not kept in portfolios, as in the British Museum, only to be extracted after a long process, but carefully framed and hung in situations where students could sit down and study or copy them. He knew of a case of a young student who came up to London to see a Rembrandt print. It took him four days to go through all the formalities before he
    548
    could get into the British Museum in order to view this particular print, and then he was not allowed to sit down and study it by himself. An official stood over him all the time. If they went to the great schools of art on the Continent they would see specimens of the very best work, which were immediately at the disposal of any student who wished to study them. The difficulties to be overcome before one could see specimens at the British Museum were almost insurmountable, and unless they were able to go abroad to see examples and get the materials necessary to complete their training, engravers could not learn their business. The result was that this large and important business of decorative art was leaving the country, simply because the stores of material in our museums were not available for the student. If the authorities took these things to Hendon, and had a building big enough, and placed these specimens in flat cases, such as he had seen in Dresden, he thought great good would result. There, when any specimen was required, it was brought out and laid in a glazed frame which lay flat upon the table, so that all the detail could be perfectly seen. He had collected modern engravings for many years, but he had no hesitation in saying that nine-tenths of his best engravings were French, German and American. All this large and important industry had gone from us, but we should very soon get it back if only facilities were given for the training of the students. What was wanted was to find what there was hidden out of sight in the Museum, and when found make it accessible to the students in a practical and effective manner.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid that anyone who had had to do with the establishment of museums knew that the great difficulty to be dealt with was the rapid accumulation of specimens and the disposal of them. Everybody would admit that the time had come to distribute the treasures now hidden in the British Museum. It was impossible for all the books and newspapers to be kept together in one place. A few years ago steps were taken to obtain this large site at Hendon, which would be of enormous advantage, but

    549
    when it was obtained it would be far too valuable to fill up with provincial newspapers. He thought the movement, however, was a good one on the part of the Museum authorities, and hoped it would extend. Other sections of the Museum should be extended. He thought Bloomsbury, the most valuable and central site, was the place where the, most valuable objects ought to be kept, but it was obvious that, owing to the growth of printing and of decorative art, every thing could not be contained there. There were a number of things buried there which ought to be exhibited, and, in his opinion, there should be a careful weeding out of the specimens, which could then be distributed to different parts. He should be sorry to say that Christmas cards, for instance, were of no use, because, in years to come, they would form part of our history, so that the only thing to do was to sub-divide the Museum in some way. He congratulated the Treasury on at last having come to the decision to allow this grant for this extension at Hendon. It was a step in the right direction, and he hoped it would be extended to other collections of the Museum.
    MR. SCHWANNthought there should be attendants in the building to point out and explain the treasures in the building. A great many people went to look at the Museum, but no steps were taken to indicate special objects of great interest which the visitors probably had no knowledge of. He thought this field of education should be made use of by the appointment of certain persons who should go through the Museum with parties and with schools and others, to point out objects of interest. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would call the attention of the authorities to the desirability of appointing some attendants to act in this manner.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIScordially agreed with the suggestion that the Museum should be subdivided, and advocated that such parts as were of most interest to a particular district should be sent to that district. He suggested that a National Museum
    550
    should be established in the Principality of Wales, such as had been established in Scotland and Ireland, and which were kept up by annual grants. He pointed out that there were many objects of Art which would be much more at home in Wales than in the British Museum. For instance, of the books and newspapers that it was proposed to send to Hendon, he ventured to think those which related to and were of advantage to Wales should be sent to Wales, where they could be preserved, and in course of time become part of the national history. The justice of the claim for a National museum for Wales had never been disputed, and he ventured to press on the hon. Gentleman, when the question of the relief of the British Museum was being discussed, that he would turn his attention to Wales, and, by so doing, not only relieve the British Museum, but give to Wales an institution she had long desired to have. He also suggested that, as there were in the British Museum exhibitions of various kinds of particular periods in the life of the nation, there should be an exhibition of articles relating to the Principality of Wales. Such an exhibition would, he believed, cause a large influx of visitors.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he thought the suggestion of sending the Welsh papers to Wales was a most excellent suggestion, but this was most delicate ground for him to tread upon, because before he held his present office he supported a Bill having for one of its objects the distribution of papers in this way, which had not met with any favour. With regard to the amount set apart for the British Museum, the noble Lord, if he looked at the appropriation, would see that it exceeded by over £1,000 the amount of last year. With regard to the distribution of newspapers of a particular locality, they had no power to send those papers to the particular locality; they had no power to send them to Hendon unless power was given by the House. The whole of this Vote depended upon the passing of a legislative enactment now in another place. There appeared to be some little misapprehension as to the power exercised by the Treasury over the British Museum.

    551
    It was true that the Treasury was ultimately responsible for the amount of money granted, but the allocation of that amount must remain with the Trustees, and if papers and prints and other objects in which hon. Members were interested did not get the attention they deserved, it was not the fault of the Treasury, because the Treasury did not interfere with the allocation of the grant. As to the suggestion of an exhibition of articles relating to Wales, he would submit it to the Trustees; and as to having a personally conducted tour round the Museum, perhaps arrangements could be made without interfering too much with the general public.
    MR. MARKHAMasked whether sufficient money was provided for cataloguing and binding catalogues.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas unable to say. The Trustees of the British Museum had an increased grant of £1,000, and it was for them and not for him to say how that money was to be spent. He appealed to the Committee not to prolong this discussion, which had now extended over some three hours but to come to a decision upon the matter.
    MR. GOGHILLexpressed the opinion that Hendon was the most inconvenient place which could have been found for the extension of the British Museum, and suggested that some spot at the end of the two penny tube would have been far more accessible to the public.
    SIR JOHN LENG, as a newspaper publisher, said he thoroughly concurred with the idea expressed that the space at the disposal of the British Museum could be much better employed than by storing up piles of old newspapers. At the same time he hoped too much money would not be spent on Hendon. So far as Scotch newspapers were concerned, he would much prefer to have them kept in Scotland. He recommended the decentralisation of the contents of the British Museum in this matter.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether it was the fact that the Trustees of the British Museum had no right at the
    552
    present time to send newspapers down to Scotland or elsewhere where it might be desirable that they should be sent.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that that was the fact.
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) took the Chair.]
    2. £7,000, to complete the sum for National Gallery.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid that every year since he had had a seat in the House he had brought up the question of the danger to national collections from fire. He heartily congratulated the First Commissioner of Works on the energetic steps he had taken in the direction of affording the necessary protection.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINpointed out that the question the hon. Member desired to refer to, should be brought up on the Buildings Vote, as the First Commissioner of Works was responsible for the care of the National Gallery in that sense.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he had discussed the question again and again on the present Vote without being challenged.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANthought the remarks of the hon. Member would be more appropriate on the Vote for the buildings.
    Vote agreed to
    3. £2,541, to complete the sum for National Portrait Gallery.
    MR. CHARLES SPENCERasked whether there was any possibility of increasing the space in the National Portrait Gallery. The pictures were so crammed already that in two or three years' time there would be no room to hang a picture at all.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that that was a matter which would have to be considered.
    Vote agreed to.
    4. £2,816, to complete the sum for Wallace Collection.
    MR. WHITLEYcomplained of the extravagant way in which the Wallace Collection appeared to be managed. The amount for glazing and cleaning pictures, labels, fittings, postage and so on, was more for this one collection than for the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery put together. Those three galleries took only £1,800 for the purposes named, whereas the Wallace Collection asked for £2,750. The extravagant management appeared to have attracted the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General, because in a recent Report, that official referred to the purchase of eighteen elaborate chairs at the cost of £90, for the use of visitors, and said—
    "If the expenditure had been submitted for their (the Lords of the Treasury) previous sanction they would not have felt able to authorise the purchase of chairs for the use of visitors at £5 each."
    It certainly seemed that this collection was being managed in an unnecessarily extravagant manner.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked why the visitors' fees for admission on students' days were treated in this case as appropriations in aid, whereas, in the case of the National Portrait Gallery, they were paid into the Exchequer. The latter was the proper way to deal with these fees, but why should they be treated differently in the one case than in the other?
    SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELLspeaking as a Trustee of the Wallace Collection, said that if the hon. Member for Halifax looked more closely into the accounts he would find that his apprehension as to the waste of money was not justified. The item for glazing did, at first sight, appear to be a large one, but it had to be remembered that an immense number of pictures contained in this collection were wholly un-glazed at this time last year, whereas the pictures in other collections were glazed one by one as they were purchased. There
    554
    were also expenses connected with the fitting and strengthening of frames to bear a weight much greater than that of the picture itself. As to the seats, possibly under ordinary circumstances there might have been a question about paying so much for them, but this extremely valuable collection was housed in what used to be a private dwelling, and there had been a great wish on the part of the trustees that it should be preserved, as Parliament, he thought, intended, as a monument of a great and noble house. For that reason the trustees had felt themselves justified in avoiding a very ugly feature of an ordinary gallery. If the annual cost of this gallery were compared with the capital value of the collection it contained it would be seen that the country had a very good bargain with having to pay only the amount for its upkeep as represented by this Vote.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,)remarked that it was within his own personal knowledge that the trustees of this splendid collection had not only-given great time and trouble to its proper arrangement and management, but they had also devoted considerable sums out of their own means to its interests.
    MR. GODDARDunderstood that the glazing was a new feature. The amount for that particular purpose last year was £2,500, while this year it was £2,750. Were the Committee to anticipate a constant expenditure of a similar sum year by year?
    SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid the expenditure would not be constant, but there would certainly have to be a considerable sum expended on this purpose. Experts now regarded it as essential that every picture should be glazed. The Trustees, therefore, proposed to glaze the whole of the collection, and the work was being proceeded with as rapidly as possible.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed" "That a sum not exceeding £5,421,862,

    555
    be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants-in-aid."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    5. £37,396, to complete the sum for Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: called attention to the item of £13,000 for the international scheme of investigation of problems connected with the North Sea Fisheries. Some time ago he put a question in the House upon this matter, and the answer he received was that pending the expenditure of this very considerable sum no steps were intended to be taken to deal with the undoubted process of depletion which was going on in connection with the North Sea fisheries. He had often heard charges made against the trawlers that they pursued their fishing in a manner which was destructive of the fisheries, but he believed that the whole of the trawling interest was most anxious that the question should be dealt with, and this view was confirmed and approved by the Reports of two recent Committees which sat upon this subject, and which found not only that the depletion of the fisheries was going on but also that it might be remedied. But instead of taking any steps to remedy this the Government had abandoned a Bill which was introduced to deal with the fisheries, and they had now referred the matter for scientific investigation not only to bodies in our own country but to a Scientific International Commission, which seemed to him likely, not only to spend a large amount of money, but what was more important a very large amount of time, probably some years, in investigating a matter which might be said to be due to causes which were well known and which might easily be remedied. He thought this international procedure, so far from being advantageous, would delay steps which ought to be
    556
    taken in the interests of fishermen. Those steps had been taken by other countries not nearly so maritime in character, and they had been found to be beneficial. He thought the time had come when this country should take its own course and deal with what was not only a danger to their maritime interests and to the food of the people, but also to the manning of the Navy which was very much connected with this question of fisheries. He would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote would tell them what was proposed to be done in the matter, what length of time was likely to be devoted to it and whether they might expect some steps to be taken on such lines as were proposed in the Bill introduced to deal with this question and which was afterwards withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESdenied that there was any depletion of the North Sea Fisheries going on, and said that, on the contrary, the amount of fish caught there was increasing.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Yes, because there has been a very great increase in the catching power.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that did not matter, for if the amount of fish being caught was larger, instead of there being a depletion of the fisheries, it was a proof to the contrary, and it was a proof that there were plenty of fish to be caught. His hon. friend had gone out of his way to make an indirect attack upon him for the successful resistance he had given for six years to what was called the immature and undersized fish Bill. Perhaps his hon. friend, would remember that the immediate cause of the abandonment of that miserable undersized fish Bill was that a Committee reported against it. That Committee reported a series of very important facts which were totally unknown before. They knew so little about the habits and movements of the fish of the sea that it was a most dangerous thing to venture upon legislation dealing with this question, and the Committee to which he had referred finally sealed the fate of the Undersized Fish Bill. Very little indeed was known about the habits of sea fish.

    557
    Take sprats, for instance. In his own little fishing place they kept a number of vessels to go out to sea to catch sprats, and no human being could tell whether the sprats would come on that coast or not. The present need was that they should get further information. It was a disgrace to this country that whilst America spent £50,000, £60,000, or £70,000 collecting information and circulating it amongst the fishermen, and utilising it in public Departments when they could to legislate on this subject, in England practically nothing was done in this direction. Our great need was the collection of facts and the ascertainment of the actual conditions which regulated not only the size of the fish but their habits and movements. He rejoiced, therefore, that the Government had made some departure in this direction, though it was not creditable to this country that it could not institute a proper system of investigation of its own independently of other nations. His own opinion was that they ought to have devoted a considerable sum of money to the establishment of a proper system of inquiry of their own, not merely in the North sea but also round the coast of Ireland and other places. They ought not to have waited until this inquiry was suggested by foreign nations, for they ought to have instituted a proper system of their own like the United States had done instead of being taken in tow by some foreign nations bordering on the North Sea who were making investigations which would be conducted largely in their own interests. Upon this matter he was a strong advocate for scientific investigation. They must not go on imposing restrictions until they thoroughly understood the conditions under which they were legislating. At the present time they knew very little about this matter, and they could not deal with it with any security until they knew the facts. Although he welcomed this small attempt to deal with the question, he regretted that it was not being undertaken by this country alone independently of foreign countries, and he urged His Majesty's Government to consider most seriously whether it would not be wise for them to set up a proper inquiry for themselves.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he did not in the least understand the argument of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who seemed to be entirely unacquainted with the circumstances under which fishing was pursued in the North Sea. The Government had done well in consulting foreign Governments in this matter. Foreign Powers came so closely in touch with us in the North Sea, and all over the coasts of the Highlands and islands of Scotland, that it was of the utmost importance that we should work hand-in-hand with them in the scientific investigation of questions affecting the fishing industry, and in dealing with the laws and regulations in regard to trawlers. The powers of reproduction of fish were limited, and it was the duty of the Government to give the hard-working fisherman protection against the depredations of what was known as the steam trawlers, which were, to a great extent, depleting the shores of Scotland and Ireland of fish. It was quite true that enormous quantities of fish were, year by year, brought to our markets by the steam trawlers, but it should not be forgotten that hundreds of steam trawlers were almost daily breaking the law by poaching on the Scotch shores, and interfering with the industry of the hard-working fishermen who fish in open boats. They only wanted the law to be carried out, but Gentleman on the Treasury Bench knew that it was being systematically evaded. He had no intention of giving a hostile vote, because what was now proposed, so far as it went, was in the right direction. It was only last year that the Irish Members got the House to pass a Bill dealing with the question of trawling. The fishermen of Scotland were suffering from the want of a Trawling Bill, and as the Scotch assisted the Irish to get their Measure last year, he sincerely hoped that when the opportunity came the Irish Members would assist in getting an equally strict Measure passed for Scotland, so that trawlers might be kept in their proper place, and obliged to conduct their operations within the strict limits of the law.
    MR. LAYLAND-BARRATTsaid he represented one of the largest trawling ports in

    559
    England, and despite the sneers of hon. Members who knew nothing of the trawlers in the North Sea, the English Channel, or the Bristol Channel, he could state that these men carried on their work undermost difficult conditions, and that they included some of the finest sailors who were to be found anywhere. If it were necessary to call out the Naval Reserve to help in the case of a naval war he thought the trawlers would provide some of the ablest seamen. With regard to the investigations in the North Sea, he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would be able to explain to the House the reason why his Department had lent support to the plan which was to be carried out. He understood that some practical as well as scientific men did not believe that the method of inquiry proposed to be adopted would really provide the information that was desired. He hoped the "President of the Board of Trade would be able to give some information to the Committee as to what I was being done in regard to the North Sea investigation. He thought that if the Board of Trade, by a system of small grants, would encourage the captains of trawlers to obtain and provide particulars of the times and places where fish were found, much more information would be obtained than by fitting out one or two special vessels.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he represented one of the oldest fisheries on the Kent coast where there was more business done with sailing smacks than at almost any other port in the Kingdom. His constituents connected with the fishing industry signed a petition against the Bill to which reference had been made. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee largely in its favour, but on hearing evidence they recommended the House not to proceed with it. No Government in the face of a report of that kind would have been justified in wasting the time of the House in proceeding with the Bill. He thought the Government were perfectly right to approach this subject from the standpoint of international conference. The Government deserved the support of the Committee in the line they had taken, namely, in declining to fly in the face of a Committee of the House.
    THE PRESIDENT OF the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I wish to explain in a few words the reasons which actuated the Government in approaching this particular aspect of fishery research. What is known as the Undersized Fish Bill has been referred to by several speakers who have preceded me. The Committee knows that the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, who reported that it was not desirable to proceed with the Bill in the absence of further information. The Committee was a strong one, and was presided over by my right hon. friend the present Home Secretary, who is himself responsible for the Bill in question. I think the Members of the Committee when they entered upon the investigation were wholly predisposed to taking up the Bill, but notwithstanding that, the conclusion they came to was as I have stated. That Committee also made two important recommendations. While recommending that the Bill should not be proceeded with in the present state of information, they added that—
    "In their view no effort ought to be spared, (first) to arrange for international treatment of the subject generally, and especially for the regulation of the North Sea area; and (second) to provide for the adequate equipment of the Government Departments in charge of the subject, so that they may effectively pursue scientific investigation, and ascertain with sufficiency and precision what has been done either in the way of scientific research, or in the matter of practical legislation by other inquirers and other countries, with a view to determining whether, and if so what, legislation may be desirable."
    Now, the Government after that Report was issued naturally came to the conclusion that it would be useless to introduce the Bill again, until something had been done towards carrying out these two important recommendations. We have tried to carry out both, and the reason why this sum of money is now asked for is that we may not destroy the prospects of that international co-operation on which the Committee, I think, rightly laid so much stress. I do not pretend to say, not being an expert in fishing matters, whether the programme sketched out at the Christiania Congress is absolutely the best that could be devised. That was not the problem before the Government. The problem before the Government was, if we

    561
    declined to take our share in that investigation what prospect there would be of securing international co-operation, without which we thought no progress could be made in the matter. I do not think we could have decided in any other sense. It is quite true, as the hon. Member opposite has said, that there is considerable difference of opinion on this subject among experts in ichthyological matters, and a great deal of strong language has been bandied about on both sides. In asking Parliament to vote this money the Government does not commit itself to the proposition that this is positively the best means of carrying out research in fishery matters, and, further, I may also remind the Committee that this is a temporary arrangement, which is to last for three or five years, as the case may be. Meanwhile, we have not lost sight of the necessity, on which the hon. Member for King's Lynn laid very proper stress, of inquiring in what manner we can carry on fishery research in a more permanent way on our own account. A Committee has been appointed to inquire how this can best be done, and I hope that in future years some more systematic and methodical scheme of ichthyological research may be devised.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that he happened to be a member of the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had referred. He quite agreed that the Bill had necessarily to be dropped, and also that this Vote was to some extent carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. He could not help reflecting, however, when he found this proposal to spend such a large amount of money on scientific research, that a much more moderate sum might be spent in obtaining practical results on the west coast of Ireland by inquiries from the fishermen there. He knew that the fishermen were hampered in their industry because the very small sum of money for the repair of their harbours was refused, and it was hard, therefore, to consent to this Vote. The First Lord of the Treasury knew the West of Ireland and the conditions of the fishing population there, and the great
    562
    benefit it would be, if a small sum—of course, nothing like this Vote—were granted for providing and repairing harbours on the west coast of Ireland. The present Chief Secretary had also gone to the West of Ireland and had seen the lamentable conditions under which the fishermen there carried on their industry; and he asked the Government and the President of the Board of Trade to seriously consider the position. When he was asked by his constituents, with reference to this Vote, he was obliged to tell them in the same breath that it was impossible to get the Committee of this House to vote even £5,000 to improve the position they were in. An hon. Gentleman on the other side had said that they in Ireland got everything they wanted, but that was not true. He was not going to move a reduction of the Vote himself, as he was on the Committee and believed that the money would be well spent.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that a Vote for scientific research could not be made use of for the repair of harbours in Ireland. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had had this question of improved harbour accommodation on the coasts of Ireland under his careful consideration for some time, and that there had been a good deal of communication between the Irish Government and the Treasury.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was very much obliged to the Secretary to the Treasury. He perfectly understood that this money could not be used in that way, but there was no reason why the Government should not come down and ask for a Vote for the benefit of the harbours on the west coast of Ireland. In his constituency a Liverpool firm, that had been doing business on the west coast, employing 300 people, and distributing wages to the extent of £25,000 a year, had been obliged to close their works on account of the miserable condition of certain harbours there.
    MR. GUESTsaid that, as a representative of a fishing port, he hoped the scientific investigations would be extended to other seas (such as the English Channel) than the North Sea. It was very desirable to guard the interests of the fishermen in the Channel, who very often suffered great loss through the destruction of their nets. He hoped his right hon. friend would consider whether a gunboat might not be sent to protect them against the infliction of such injury.
    MR. LAYLAND-BARRATTasked if he was right in understanding the statement of the President of the Board of Trade to mean that the decision of the Government to take part in International Investigations in connection with the North Sea Fisheries would not in any way affect the position or proceedings of the Ichthyological Committee, and would not in any way limit the Government's freedom of action in dealing with any recommendations which that Committee might make.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINassented
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £78,706, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for Grants-in-Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the Expenses under The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he begged to move the reduction of this vote by the sum of £1,700. He explained that he did not do so because he had any objection to the University Colleges, but to call attention to the very exceptional treatment afforded to one college, viz., King's College. London. Being a London graduate himself, he desired not to be misunderstood in regard to his attitude towards this great institution, King's College. He knew, from his own personal knowledge, how well
    564
    equipped a college it was and what admirable work it had done in the past. But he felt bound to express a considerable body of opinion in the country, and amongst the graduates in London, against the vote of £1,700 to King's College until they had altered their constitution. They objected, in the first place, because it was frankly a denominational Church of England college; secondly, because they could sec no sound reason for the exceptional treatment accorded to it; and, thirdly, because the resisting restrictions under the Act of 1882 in regard to the appointment of officers and professors tended to impair the educational efficiency of the institution. This matter had not been raised for the first time. About the year 1896, when the New Treasury Minute was being prepared allocating grants to colleges, Mr. Carvel Williams brought the matter before the House, and in a very temperate speech explained the restrictions on the appointment of officers and professors; and although no division was taken the discussion was taken part in by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington, himself a distinguished graduate of the college, who agreed that the existing restrictions were illusory and ought to be abolished as soon as possible. So far as he understood, nothing had yet been done to remove these restrictions. Nobody on that side of the House wished to approach this question in any narrow or bigotted spirit, but in regard to Clause 12 of the Act of 1882 they had a distinct grievance. Under that clause no new officers, no new professors, and no new teachers except, he thought, the professors of Oriental languages, could be appointed to these offices unless they were members of the Church of England. Not only was that wrong from the point of view of the educational efficiency of the college, but it imposed a very unfair stigma upon many distinguished graduates of the Univerity of London who had a right to aspire to those high positions.
    It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  OPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

    EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
    As amended, considered.
    MR. SPEARmoved to omit Clause 9. He said that under this clause the East bourne Corporation proposed to take from the Board of Guardians the right to collect the poor rates. That right they had enjoyed since 1837, and they were very much opposed to any alteration being made in this direction. Unfortunately the guardians did not appear by petition in opposition to this Bill when it was before the Committee. He confessed he raised the point at this stage of the proceedings with great reluctance, and he should not do so were it not for an important principle, as he thought, involved. The Board of Guardians were influenced, he might say, in abstaining from petitioning for two reasons. The first was because they received a circular from the Local Government Board stating that they had suggested to the Committee that the clause should be disallowed, and considering and hoping that the Committee would be advised by this suggestion, and having regard to the expense of petitioning against it, they abstained. But so strongly did they object to this clause that they had urged the Council of the Poor Law Associations of England and Wales to seek to save them from the imposition of this clause. The Council of the Poor Law Association had again and again discussed this question, and they were strongly opposed to any such alteration as was proposed. The Guardians felt that it was right they should retain in their hands the appointment of the men who collected the funds which they had to administer. He was aware that the Local Taxation Commission made some recommendation in the direction of the clause, but with references to that there was an instruction, at least a recommendation, from the Local Government Board placed
    566
    before the Committee when dealing with this Bill, in which they said that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation had recommended that the collection of all rates in boroughs should be made by the Borough Councils, but the Board submitted that if the law in this respect was to be altered this should be done by a general measure, and not by local Acts as regarded each particular case. The Board of Guardians, of course, had the right to oppose the Bill in the House of Lords, and that they had unanimously resolved to do; but surely it was very undesirable that a public body should have to use the funds drawn from the rates in resisting on the part of another public body a proposal such as was contained in this clause. He ventured to express the hope that there would be such a co-operation of opposition on the part of that House against an important question of this kind being dealt with by a private Bill that an appeal to the House of Lords would be rendered unnecessary. By the transference of these powers from the Board of Guardians to the Borough Councils there would be no saving to the ratepayer. He hoped the House would see fit to eliminate this clause from the Bill.
    Amendment proposed.
    "To leave out Clause 9:—(Mr. Spear.")
    Question proposed, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. HOGGsaid he had listened with great interest to the arguments used by the Hon. Member for Tavistock in favour of the Amendment, but he was at a loss to understand how he could for a moment expect the House to reject his clause which had actually been passed in Committee. Why was not this question raised before the Committee? It appeared to him a matter of detail and not of principle, and he thought they had too frequently of late departed from the traditions of the House in matters of this sort. If the Committee, after due consideration, did not see fit that this Clause should be eliminated, why was not evidence brought before the Committee, so that they might hear both sides? The hon. Gentleman who

    567
    had just sat down appeared to speak as Chairman of the Guardians' Association. He failed to see what he had to do with the Eastbourne Division. On their side they might have brought forward the Chairman of the Borough Councils. But that, in their view, was unnecessary. The House had always supported its Committees, and they looked to the House to support the Committee now. He would like to point out that a corresponding clause had been passed in Bills for Brighton, Hastings, Portsmouth, St. Helens, West Ham, Scarborough, York, and Hull. Not least they had the London Government Act of 1899, which give a similar power to that which was being asked for here. In addition to that, there was a poll on this Bill at Eastbourne, and the result was 4,700 of the ratepayers in favour of it to 2,000 against it. The collectors opposed it, he was told, but afterwards they agreed to it on certain conditions, which had been embraced in the Bill. He maintained that the cost of collection would be considerably less, because the same men who collected the district rates would collect the poor rates. He did not think there would be any difficulty as to payments, because everything would be done to meet the wishes of the ratepayers. In 1900 the Local Taxation Committee said that the collection of all rates and taxes in boroughs should be made by the Borough Council, and in urban districts by the Guardians. If the House departed from the old traditions of carrying out the decision of the Committee they would have had an absolute waste of time, and all their work would have been abortive. He begged to oppose the Amendment.
    CAPTAIN NORTONthought the House should support the Committee, because the Guardians who were now opposing this clause had ample opportunity of doing so before the Committee, and did not take advantage of it. It seemed to him that the opposition to the clause was an afterthought on the part of certain persons interested in the collection of rates, and he hoped the House would not consent to the rejection of the clause.
    MR. J. W. WILSON, as a member of the Committee, could
    568
    not agree with the argument that a small reform of this sort should wait until a public Act was passed. Where good cause was shown, and there was no strong local opposition to such a clause, it was the practice to grant it, more especially as this Clause coincided with the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and it was evidently in the interests of economy and good administration that the rates should be collected under one head. He believed it was a convenience to the public not to have several different collectors. He thought the Committee were fully justified in granting this Clause, as had been done in so many other cases, and he therefore supported their action.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he believed he was correct in saying that every corporation which had asked for the right of collecting the poor rates had been granted the power. At St. Helens an annual saving of £800 had been effected. The Local Government Board was, it should be remembered, an overworked Department.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said it was stated in the circular of the promoters that this was necessary because the Local Government Board could not take away the power to appoint these collectors of poor rates when once it became vested in the guardians. That was not so. This matter opened out the question whether local authorities should be allowed to get, by private Bill, power which they could get under the general law if they showed good cause to a Government Department. He failed to find any reason for disagreeing with the usual course that the particular clause should not be granted. The clause, as he had shown, was hardly necessary, and it was a pity there should be a fight between the Board of Guardians and the Town Council, because whoever won the ratepayers had to pay the costs of both sides, and that ought to have been avoided. He pointed out that the collectors of poor rates were poor law officials. Whether they drew together two offices in one man or not,

    569
    they might keep a distinction between the offices. The right way for the Eastbourne Corporation to have proceeded in this matter would have been not to have put their constituents to this expense, but to have gone to the Local Government Board and shown cause why they should have had transferred to them the right to collect the poor rates. He took three objections to the Bill. In the first place, it took from the Local Government Board its statutory discretion; it also promoted a Parliamentary contest which might be very expensive to the ratepayers; and it added a class of new officers of whom the law had no cognisance. He would feel it his duty to vote against the Clause.
    MR. LUKE WHITEsaid he hoped the House would not support the Amendment. The Committee on the Bill had followed a precedent which had been already sanctioned by the House, and no new principle was involved. In the case of Eastbourne, it was proved before the Committee that the Local Government Board had, by order, given the Borough Council the power to appoint overseers and assistant overseers, and the Committee considered they should go a step further and enable the Council to appoint collectors. A petition was presented against the Clause in the Bill as it originally stood, but the Borough Council altered the Clause so as to give proper compensation to officers. If the Clause were passed, the House would be following the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Board of Guardians was an authority extending over a much wider area than the borough of Eastbourne, and it was desirable, in the interests of local government,
    that this power of appointing collectors of rates should be entrusted to the Borough Council.
    MR. SPEARsaid as they would have another opportunity of expressing an opinion, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: No, No.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he was a member of a Committee on a Bill containing a similar clause, but he did not remember a single case in which objection was taken from the point of view to which he understood objection was taken that night—that was the point of view of the Board of Guardians of Eastbourne. It did seem that the most satisfactory way would be to re-commit this Bill to the Committee, thus giving the Eastbourne Board of Guardians plenty of time to bring forward any objections they might urge against this particular Bill. There were very strong arguments against the Clause which he would like to have threshed out. His own opinion was that they only had objections from the general point of view, and not had any real discussion upon what he understood was the important question, that was whether the Board of Guardians should have the power of appointing overseers taken away from them, and whether it should be done by a private Bill and not by some public Act applicable to the whole administration of the country.
    (9.35.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 38, (Division List No. 222.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Bell, Richard

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Bigwood, James

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Boland, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bond, Edward

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Bull, William James

    Crean, Eugene

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Caldwell, James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Arrol, Sir William

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Delany, William

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Denny, Colonel

    Barry, E, (Cork, S.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Dillon, John

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

    Charrington, Spencer

    Doogan, P. C.

    Douglas, Et. Hon. A. Akers-

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Rigg, Richard

    Elibank, Master of

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Roche, John

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    M'Crae, George

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Kean, John

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Flower, Ernest

    Murphy, John

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Spear, John Ward

    Gilhooly, James

    Myers, William Henry

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

    Groves, James Grimble

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n N.

    Hammond, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Helder, Augustus

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    O'Malley, William

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Holland, William Henry

    O'Mara, James

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    White, Patrick-(Meath, North)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    O'Shee, James John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Partington, Oswald

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

    Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Wilson, Fred, W.('Norfolk, Mid)

    Joyce, Michael

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Layland, Barratt, Francis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Leamy, Edmund

    Purvis, Robert

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Randles, John S.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Leng, Sir John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Levy, Maurice

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Hogg and Captain Norton.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Reid, James, (Greenock)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Renwick, George

    Lundon, W.

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    NOES.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Henderson, Alexander

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Percy, Earl

    Brassey, Albert

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Carlile, William Walter

    Lawson, John Grant

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Maclver, David (Liverpool)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Finch, George II.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Reddy and Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Gretton, John

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill to be read the third time.

SUPPLY [11th allotted Day].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [11th allotted Day].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS III.
    1. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £340,929,
    572
    be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the expenses of the prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies."
    MR. HAYsaid he would venture to address a question to the Home Secretary, regarding which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some information to the Committee. That was with reference to the steps which the Department had

    573
    taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 1895 as regarded the treatment of young criminals. He also ventured to express a hope that no time should be lost in enlarging the scheme, so that its beneficial effects might be spread over the country and not confined to London alone. The read object of the Borstal scheme was that the gaol should be a place, not to end the character of the prisoner but to mend it. In that connection, where was the utility of teaching prisoners futile sections of a trade which would not enable them to gain an adequate livelihood on emerging from prison. The object of the scheme, which he believed had the approval of his right hon. friend, was to teach a prisoner such portions of a trade as would enable him to gain a living wage when he joined the army of wage-earners out of prison, but the efforts of the prison authorities would not be successful unless they received the active sympathy of the public. There was no use teaching a prisoner a trade in prison if, when he returned to civil life, no one would employ him. Therefore, he ventured to make an urgent appeal to all interested in the subject to render it easier for a discharged prisoner to obtain employment. That task would not be difficult on the part of the public, if the scheme which his right hon. friend had in view was to teach a prisoner a trade which would not involve his being placed after his discharge in a position which would expose him to the risk of dishonesty. The attitude of persons interested in the trade union movement on this subject was one which, he hoped, would receive consideration. He thought it would be better if these persons, instead of directing their efforts to insisting that prison labour should be of such a character as not to interfere with trade unionists, came to feel that the greatest saving to the taxpayers of the country, and, therefore, to the wage-earners, would be that prisoners should be diminished in number, and competition from prison labour accordingly reduced to a minimum not worth consideration. Another point on which he ventured to ask the attention of the Committee was one in which the Home Office and the general public were fellow sufferers, through the action or inaction of the War Office. Not long ago a Question was asked in the House as to the number of soldiers incarcerated in local and
    574
    convict prisons for purely military offences, but when he attempted to raise the subject later, he was informed that the proper occasion on which to deal with it was on the Vote for His Majesty's prisons. He did not desire to make any attack on the prison authorities regarding the matter, but he was anxious to gain information from his right hon. friend. He understood that the Inspector General of Military Prisons, year after year, for at least four years, had placed on record, in his official report, his emphatic opinion that the inclusion in civil prisons in this country of soldiers sentenced for purely military offences was a condition of things which he could not approve. That being so, he desired to ask what the Secretary of State had done to ensure that the War Office should make adequate provision in military goals for military offenders. That was not a matter connected with the urgency of the war, because it had been placed on record in the official reports to which he had alluded before the war broke out. He hoped his right hon. friend who was a man of strong character and generally got his own way, would make it clear to the military authorities that he would not permit of such a number of military prisoners being confined in civil gaols, and that military prison accommodation should be commensurate with the increase of the Army.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing military prisons.
    MR. HAYsaid he quite recognised that, but his point was that inasmuch as civil prison accommodation was being encroached upon, his right hon. friend should not allow the accommodation for civil prisoners to be rendered insufficient. The military prisoners who were confined in civil gaols were not the class of offenders for which his right hon. friend was the authority. Their offences were of a purely disciplinary character. He spoke, he was sure, with the sympathy of hon. Members on both sides and also of the public generally, when he said there was a strong feeling that the lives of these soldiers, many of them young, should not be tainted by being confined in prisons with habitual criminals, and the worst of the nation, who had been convicted of the most serious crimes. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make most

    575
    earnest representations to the proper authorities that they should remove from the convict prisons of the country the soldiers, most of them young men, who were now undergoing penal servitude, not for any disgraceful crimes, from a civil point of view, to punish which rigorous hard labour was established, but for offences committed under the stern law of war, the gravity of which they were, perhaps, unconscious of. Beyond the urgency occasioned by the war or the exigencies of military accommodation, there lay the great principle as to whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as the chief civil prison authority of the country, should be asked to house with the worst in the land, young men, many of them mere lads, who had been convicted of offences which could not be called disgraceful, and for which they were being punished in a manner which would make them, in the eyes of the public, criminals for life.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £340,829, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
    SIR JOHN LENGsaid he wished to associate himself with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, in so far as he had expressed regret that the civil prisons of the country should have been required to such a large extent during the late war for the imprisonment of soldiers. The offences committed by the soldiers were very different, indeed, from the brutal crimes of ordinary criminals. For instance, many young soldiers had been sentenced to very heavy penalties for such offences as, after being exhausted by continuous marching in military operations, being found asleep at their posts. That, no doubt, was a heinous offence from a military point of view, but an offence which differentiated the soldiers who committed it from the ordinary criminal classes. Happily, the war was over, and he trusted that now there would be a speedy and large reduction in the number of that class of offenders in the civil prisons of the country. He wished to (joint out that there was a large increase of expenditure under the different items, which amounted altogether to £25,000. That arose unhappily from the great increase in the number of prisoners. They ought to look facts
    576
    steadily in the face, and frankly recognise that that was due, to a considerable extent, to the prosperity of the country, to the abundance of employment, and to the large wages earned by many of the working classes, which unfortunately were often spent in drink. He merely alluded to that, in order to impress on the Home Secretary that it was really due to the unfortunate habits of the working men themselves that the prisons of the country were so crowded, indeed he might say overcrowded. He referred to it because the Home Secretary had charge of a Licensing Bill which had passed through Committee. He believed there was general admiration at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had carried it through Committee, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would exercise all the influence he possessed to pass that Bill during the present session. It was not so much a question of £25,000, but this increase of expenditure struck at the very root of the social condition of the working classes, and anything that might restrict the enormous evils which arose from excessive drinking would be most desirable.
    MR. JOHN HUTTONsaid he wished to ask the Home Secretary if he would be good enough to tell the Committee whether he had done anything with regard to the conditions of service of prison officers for superannuation. In the earlier part of the session, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the position of the prison warders was not satisfactory, and he said that if it were possible to improve it, he would do so; and he added that he thought the improvement might be effected by increasing the rate of pay, rather than by altering the scheme of superannuation. The Home Secretary was well aware that the prison officials had not asked for an increase of pay. What they wished for was that their term of service for superannuation should be considerably shortened. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, in February last, that the position of a prison warder was more like that of a police constable than an ordinary civil servant. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be fully alive to that fact, but he said that the action of the Treasury prevented him from altering the terms of superannuation. He hoped that

    577
    on further consideration the Home Secretary would be able to pluck up his courage and face the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the proposal to alter the terms of service for superannuation.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
    MR. JOHN HUTTONsaid he would only express a hope that the Home Secretary would be able to inform the Committee what he proposed to do towards improving the position of prison warders.
    MR. FLOWERsaid he desired to re-echo what had been said by the hon. Member for Shoreditch with regard to the efforts which should be made by the Home Secretary to free the civil prisons of the country of their present unduly large number of military offenders. He thought there could be no doubt that considerable overcrowding now prevailed in many prisons. He also wished to ask the Home Secretary if he were willing to reconsider an answer he gave to him with regard to the appointment of a lady inspector for female prisons. He did not ask that a large number of such appointments should be made, but he suggested that, as a very considerable amount of success had attended the employment of women as factory inspectors, very useful and valuable work would also be done if one or two ladies were appointed to act as inspectors of female prisons. He also wished to ask whether the Home Secretary was in a position to report this year, as last year, that there had been a considerable decrease in the amount of unproductive labour in prisons. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman was doing all he could to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and that he believed was also the settled policy of the Prison Commissioners. Further, everyone interested in prison administration would be very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how far his plan with regard to Borstal had progressed, whether he had selected the governor, and any other similar information. The success of the
    578
    plan would very largely depend on the man selected to be governor or director of the prison, and upon the principle to; be carried out there being of an educational kind. Everyone interested in prison reform in the country would admit that the right hon. Gentleman's career at the Home Office had been characterised by very admirable and substantial progress.
    MR. WHITLEYdesired to put in a plea for the military prisoners in the civil prisons. In 1901 there were no less than 4,079 prisoners committed, and it appeared that at least 700 of those were in the prisons under the control of the Home Secretary. During the war many young fellows had enlisted and fought for their country while under age, and he feared there were a considerable number of these now in civil prisons. No one would wish to palliate the offences for which they had incurred punishment, but as he happened to know of one or two such cases personally, he could not help feeling deeply for them. He knew some of these prisoners whose character was, generally speaking, of the best; but they had been misled into a single offence, and it had been their lot to be cast into a civil prison to serve out their sentence with criminals. In regard to offenders such as these, he hoped the Home Secretary would considerably relax the ordinary methods of prison treatment. Many of these young men, if they were kept apart from the really criminal portion of the prisoners, would make it their business for the rest of their lives to redeem the one offence for which they were now suffering, instead of being tainted by contact with other prisoners, and then, when their sentences were expired, going down hill without a chance of recovery.
    MR. SPEARurged the desirability of providing more housing accommodation for the warders of His Majesty's prison at Princetown. At present there were twenty-two families of warders living in the village, and, having regard to the limited size of Princetown, and the absence of sufficient accommodation, this caused a considerable degree of over-crowding, high rents, and insanitary conditions. The right

    579
    hon. Gentleman had been carrying out, with the tradesmen who were prisoners, a very beneficial work in the extension of the prison premises. That work was now completed, and he ventured to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the importance of erecting more houses for the warders in order that the congested state of affairs to which he had referred might be corrected. The Home Secretary took a great interest in the better housing of the working classes, but surely the Government, as employers of labour, should set an example to other employers in this respect.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,)said the main question that had been discussed was one of more than usual interest at the present time—namely, the question of military prisoners in civil gaols. He had more than once stated that that was an arrangement which did not meet the views he held. He was very sorry that we had any military prisoners in our civil gaols, but he was glad to say they were becoming fewer every year. The hon. Member for Dundee had said that the increased population in our civil prisons was to some extent owing to the military prisoners. Though that was true, the real increase of this year over last year could not be gauged from the fact that on the estimate there was an apparent increase of £34,000. That was an increase over the original estimates of last year, and the hon. Member had probably forgotten that a supplementary estimate was afterwards introduced. Therefore, though the population of our gaols was large, there was little more provision being made this year than was actually required last year for the purposes of their support.
    With regard to the military prisoners, the Committee would perhaps have in its mind that there were two classes of military prisoners—the first consisting of those whose offences had been of a very serious character, and who, in addition to the imprisonment awarded them had been dismissed from the Army, and the second consisting of prisoners who, on the expiry of their sentences, would return to service in the Army. The number of the former class had now
    580
    fallen to about 500. Though these men no longer belonged to the Army, he hoped the time would come when they would be taken out of civil gaols and put into military gaols, but there was not quite as strong a claim for their removal as in the case of those who would afterwards return to the colours. At the same time he sympathised with the view that the gravity of their offences had been military and not civil, and he had already been in communication with the Prison Commission, with a view to seeing whether, so long as these men remained in civil prisons, they could not be made a separate class. A separate class had always been made of the men who were to return to the colours, but the others had been treated as ordinary criminals. He thought, however, that something should be done to keep them apart from the ordinary criminal population, and he hoped to be able to arrange it. Although it might cost a little money to carry out the same principle as in connection with the other class, he thought the money would be well spent, and that we must endeavour to devise some plan for the purpose.
    MR. HAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman include those who are serving sentences for military offences in convict prisons?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he was only speaking of ordinary civil prisons. It would be extremely difficult to arrange for separate treatment in convict prisons. He had always regarded with dissatisfaction the presence of military prisoners in civil prisons; and to meet the evil, arrangements had been made to transfer certain prison accommodation to the military authorities, in order that the imprisoned soldiers might be kept under ordinary military control. He was glad to say that the number of men who would return to the colours now in civil prisons was only forty-three, and he hoped that within a month or two they would all have been got rid of. He hoped the statement he had been able to make to the Committee on that point would prove satisfactory.
    He entirely agreed with the view of the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the ordinary population of our prison s. He had advocated temperance legislation

    581
    on that ground, viz., that the great bulk of the serious and violent crime of the country was caused by drunkenness. More than once he had endeavoured to do something to deal with that evil, and he was glad to think that; he measure introduced by the Government was now in such a condition that its passage this session was assured. Although the Bill was full of points of difficulty and contention, he felt it light to say that he had never worked in a Grand Committee of a more business-like character than that to which this Bill was referred, or one in which all Sides were so sincerely anxious to pass into law a useful measure upon this extremely important subject. Hon. Members might rely upon his exertions to pass the Bill during the present session.
    With regard to the pay and superannuation of prison warders, to which the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire had referred, he was afraid he could add nothing to his previous statements on the subject. It was a serious matter to dead with. A more favourable scale with regard to superannuation would not entail a, very large expenditure, but it would involve a very serious principle. Prison warders were civil servants, under the ordinary Superannuation Acts, and it would be impossible for the Government to give them any better terms than those enjoyed by other classes of civil servants. Power would have to be taken by legislation, and the deterrent to their taking that course was not the cost involved, but the strong argument which other classes of civil servants might then have for demanding more favourable terms than those at present current. The police were not in the same category, as they were not civil servants, and they were not paid by the Grown. But he was still in communication with the Prisons Commissioners, and if anything could be done he should be glad to do it.
    In reply to the hon. Member for West Bradford, he was glad to say that prison labour was gradually becoming more reproductive. The proceeds for the present year were some hundreds of pounds greater than in the preceding year.
    As to the appointment of lady inspectors, he had dealt with that question
    582
    on more than one occasion. He did not believe that female prisoners were in any way suffering from the want of lady inspectors. He did not think that any number of female inspectors could do more for female prisoners than was now done by the excellent body of lady visitors who associated themselves with prison administration and did such immense good.
    The hon. Member for the Tavistock Division had appealed, to him, as a strong advocate of the better housing of the working-classes, to see that the prison warders at Princetown were properly accommodated. A good deal had been done in that way, and more was being done, but he would make further inquiries into the matter.
    The only other question was that raised by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch, with regard, to the treatment of prisoners between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. The Home Office were more and more endeavouring so to deal with younger prisoners that at the end of their term they might be expected to become respectable members of society. It was felt that the best way to deal with them was to treat them entirely on the reformatory side. As the, Committee probably knew, young prisoners below sixteen were now being dealt with in one prison, and with great success. The Home Office were now going a, step further and arranging for collecting together in one prison (Borstal) prisoners between sixteen and twenty-one. The prison, would, he believed, be opened and the scheme started by the month of August, and they would endeavour to bring to boar upon those young prisoners influences for good, in all kinds of ways. By teaching them trades, as well as by general instruction and education, and methods of that kind, it was hoped that when their sentences expired these young prisoners would be anxious to leave the courses of life they had previously pursued, and embark upon honest careers. This was not only a more humane but also a more profitable way of dealing with prisoners of that kind. He did not know that he had anything further to say with regard to the subject before the Committee and perhaps now that they had discussed these various matters hon. Members would be good enough to allow them to have this Vote.
    MR. HAYsaid he was very much disappointed that his right hon. friends had not answered one or two questions which he had addressed to him. He wished to have more information about the provision of accommodation for military offenders, so that in future there would be no more incarceration within civil gaols of military offenders. He noticed that on the 15th of May it was stated that there were 712 soldiers in civil prisons, but that number included those who were guilty of civil offences which must have been very small. It would be far from satisfactory to the House unless the discussion this evening led to the permanent redress of what they considered to be a very serious evil. Therefore before this Vote was passed he sincerely hoped his right hon. friend would be able to inform them categorically that he had determined to adopt measures which would for all time prevent soldiers guilty of military offences being admitted to civil gaols.
    MR. TOMKINSONasked the Home Secretary whether he could give them some information upon the question of corporal punishment in gaols. He should be very glad to know if, as a result of the change in the system, the infliction of corporal punishment had become much less frequent.
    MR. RITCHIE: I should be glad to see flogging abolished altogether in prisons, but I am afraid that in the interest of discipline there must be some punishment of the kind for very grave offences. Of course it is my duty, when these cases are laid before me, to see that the gravity of the offence is such as warrants the infliction of flogging.
    MR. DILLONsaid it was a mistake to suppose that discipline in prisons could not be maintained without flogging, for it had been abolished in Irish gaols for a good many years. Some years ago the governor of Mount-joy gaol gave up flogging and the testimony of many governors was that they were able to maintain discipline amongst the prisoners better without flogging. There must be something wrong with the system in English prisons if they had
    584
    to resort to flogging when they could do without it in Irish gaols. The very same argument was put forward ad nauseam at the time when flogging was abolished in the British Army when it was seriously put forward that as a result of abolishing flogging the Army would disappear. Nevertheless they abolished flogging in the Army, and who would venture to suggest that flogging should be returned to. Experience had shown them that brutal punishments had no restraining influence upon men. Why was it necessary to have flogging for the protection of warders from the brutal assaults which were sometimes perpetrated upon them? Outside prisons and in the streets, if a Member of this House was assaulted, or the Hooligan gang killed a citizen by beating him, or if they robbed him, flogging was not adopted. In the case of a warder who was always on guard and was protected more or less, why should he have a special form of protection which was denied to the citizen or to the ordinary policeman. A far greater number of brutal assaults occurred outside than inside prisons, and he strongly protested against the maintenance of this form of punishment. He wished to raise his voice against this practice of flogging in English gaols, for it had been long ago abolished in Irish gaols.
    MR. HAYsaid he should be compelled to move a reduction in the Vote unless an answer was given to his question in relation to the confinement of military prisoners in civil prisons.
    MR. RITCHIE: My hon. friend, of course, will take what action he pleases, but I have dealt fully with the question and have nothing more to add upon that point.
    MR. HAYsaid that under the circumstances he felt bound to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. When he found that a categorical question, put in the public interest, did not receive a reply, he felt bound to adopt this course.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid he was not aware what statistics the Home Secretary had got with

    585
    regard to the number of military men in prisons. From the Reports which had been published, he gathered that in 1900 there were in civil prisons 1,743 soldiers and sailors who were sentenced by courts-martial, and in the Report published last year the number of soldiers and sailors who were in civil prisons under sentence by courts-martial was 4,079. He could not understand how the Home Secretary could now state that the number was between 400 and 500. On the first page of the Report it was stated that the number of persons received in local prisons was 114,600, besides 4,779 soldiers and sailors sentenced by courts-martial. There were also 12,576 persons in prison as debtors, and 1,539 for default of sureties, making a total of 166,794. That statement did not correspond with what the Home Secretary had just said. There were also in the same Report comments upon the excess of numbers in civil prisons, and it was pointed out that the discipline in a military prison was of a totally different character to a civil prison, and that there ought to be complete separation between the two cases. Those facts were brought before the notice of the Home Office, and what had the Home Secretary done? He told them in the course of this Debate that he was going to remedy this, but he bad been telling them this for the last six years. It was astonishing that nothing had been done. He thought this was a complete justification for reducing the Vote, and he wished to protest against the mariner in which military and naval men were being kept in civil prisons.
    MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is very fond of perusing Blue-books and showing his familiarity with figures which does great credit to his powers of research. He has quoted 4,000 as the number of military prisoners, but that is the total number of prisoners who have passed through the prisons in the course of the whole year dealt with in the Report. The numbers I quoted were those who were actually in prison on a given day—ten days or so ago,
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there was a
    586
    certain amount of indefiniteness about the Statement made by the Home Secretary. What the hon. Member for Hoxton wished to know was if the reduction of military prisoners in civil prisons arose in consequence of some new system that was going on, and was likely to continue; and would that system prevent any increase in the number of military prisoners in civil prisons?
    MR. RITCHIE: I confess that I did not quite understand my hon. friend's question before. That is precisely the system we are pursuing. We are determined to get rid of the necessity of taking charge of military prisons in civil gaols. The military authorities have been gradually creating prisons for their own prisoners, and the Home Office has assisted by handing over certain of their prisons to the military authorities. The result will be that we shall cease to have any military prisoners of the second class described by me in our prisons.
    MR. HAYsaid he had certainly misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and he assured him that he had no wish whatever to make himself disagreeable. Now that he understood that arrangements were being made, whereby no military offenders would be put in civil gaols, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. PIRIEcalled the attention of the Committee to the evil arising from sending military prisoners to civil gaols. Many of the military prisoners were lads, and it was very undesirable that they should be allowed to associate with prisoners of the worst description. He was afraid there were offences which would continue until the present system of enlisting boys was stopped. He hoped the Home Secretary would look into this matter, and that they would hear no more of the evil referred to.
    2. £120,908, to complete the sum for Reformatory and industrial Schools, Great Britain.
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid the Home Secretary had informed the House of the great importance he attached to the work done in the reformatories. He wished to refer to the question of the management of these institutions, and to the Home Office control. He believed that the Home Office had the power to suspend the certificate, and to stop public grants to an institution which was not in a satisfactory position. There were about forty-eight certified reformatories, and about 152 certified industrial schools. Of the former, none were under the management of public bodies, and of the latter only nineteen were so managed, there being no public control in the case of all the rest, beyond that provided by the inspectors of the Home Office. Of the total income of the reformatories, fully 85 per cent. was provided from public sources, and for the industrial schools the proportion was even larger. The religious influences of the reformatories were undoubtedly good, but they ought not to allow this consideration to entirely outweigh the equally great consideration of the sanitary surroundings in which these boys were found. It was the case that nearly every one of the reformatories was overcrowded, and the sanitary condition of many of them was condemned in very strong terms by the inspectors of the Home Office. The state of things was such as not only to be bad for the health of the boys, but had also in their moral influence, especially when the surroundings from which they originally came were considered. In spite of the facts disclosed in the inspectors' reports, he did not know of any case in which the Home Office had exercised its right of punishing the managers for not keeping their institutions in a better state by withholding from them the public grant. If private management could not supply sufficient reformatories to accommodate the boys committed to them in decent surroundings, it was surely necessary for the State to under take the work. He trusted the Home
    588
    Secretary would give his attention to this matter, and if he did, he had every confidence that the right hon. Gentleman would soon find a remedy for a very unsatisfactory state of things.
    MR. RITCHIE: There is no doubt that the class of children sent to these schools, are in many ways difficult to deal with. I can quite understand that in some of the institutions, perhaps, the sanitary conditions may not be up to what we consider the right mark, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he brings to my notice any particular case which he thinks requires particular investigation in matters of this kind, I will take care that it is fully inquired into. While we have a large number of these institutions under local management, we cannot have the same amount of control as if they were institutions belonging to the State. The hon. Gentleman's remedy for that is that they should cease to be under local management, and that they should all become State institutions.
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid he had no objection to their remaining as they were, if they were properly managed.
    MR. RITCHIE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the inspectors are continually endeavouring to stir up the managers of these institutions, with a view to their being carried on in a mariner satisfactory both in regard to sanitary arrangements and otherwise, but the inspectors cannot always be on the spot, and I can conceive that there may be circumstances which ought to be seen to and remedied. I will discuss the matter with the inspectors, from the point of view the hon. Gentleman mentions, and if I can do anything to stir up the managers to take care that the institutions are kept in a creditable manner, I will be very glad to do so. This we can say with a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure—that the records of the children who leave these institutions are, as a rule, most highly creditable both to the children and to the institutions. I will not weary the Committee at the present time with any details of the records of those children when they go out into the world, but

    589
    they are very remarkable. I gave some of them last year. I showed that they got into excellent employment, and that they did extremely well after leaving the institutions. A great many have gone into the Army and Navy, and a huge number have been to the front. Many of them have got great distinction, and I three of them got the Victoria Cross. Many of them received the "Distinguished Service" order. Some of them have obtained commissions, and so far as regards the results which follow the training given in these institutions, we have every reason to congratulate the managers on the success of their management. I will take care to have a consultation with the inspectors, with the view of seeing whether something can be done in the direction the hon. Gentleman desires.
    MR. GODDARDsaid he fully appreciated the sympathetic reply the Home Secretary had given to his hon. friend. The great difficulty was that so many of these schools were not in any sense under public control. Of the forty-eight reformatories there was not one under public control, and out of 192 Industrial Schools only nineteen were under the management of public bodies. It would be acknowledged by everybody that when such a number of these important institutions were in private hands, it was all the more necessary that the inspection should be complete and thorough. He asked the Home Secretary to bring some pressure to bear upon the management to remedy the complaints in the inspectors' Reports. Last year there were fifteen adverse Reports in reference to accommodation and sanitation, and yet it did not appear that any effect followed. These Reports did not attract public attention, but considering that eighty-five per cent. of the maintenance was drawn from public sources, the Home Office would be justified in withdrawing certificates if no remedy was provided for repeated complaints. He did not think it would be a harmful thing, if the certificates were withdrawn from those institutions which were adversely reported on.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am bound to say that whatever may have been said in the
    590
    way of threat, I have never been guilty of putting it into execution. The hon. Gentleman has himself frankly stated a strong reason why we should not do it. It would be a strong thing to close an institution, where the children are doing well. What happens in nine cases out of ten is that when a fault is pointed out to the managers, they promise that the fault will be remedied. The inspectors bring pressure to bear on the managers of the institutions to have the necessary alterations made. Whether they always do what they ought to do is another question. I think the hon. Gentleman and the Committee will see that to adopt the course which has been suggested, rather than to give managers the option of remedying defects of which complaint has been made, might be attended with disadvantage to the cause which we all have at heart. I can only say, what I daresay hon. Members know, that our inspectors have their hearts very much in the work, and are desirous that everything should be done to remedy defects in the management of the institutions. I should be sorry to be driven to take the course which the hon. Gentleman suggests, though I can conceive circumstances in which it might be necessary.
    MR COURTENAY WARNERsaid he came across a case in his own neighbourhood where there was trouble some time ago in regard to the treatment of boys. He thought that a threat to publish in the local newspapers the Reports which were adverse to the institutions, so that the subscribing public might know that they were helping to support places which were not carried on properly, would have a beneficial effect on badly managed schools.
    SIR JOHN DORINGONsaid the hon. Member for Dewsbury suggested that all these schools should be placed under public control. If they looked into the history of reformatories they would find that almost the first instituted were under public control, and they were absolute failures. The

    591
    system of private management had resulted in what he thought was the present success. Having been a member of a Commission to enquire into these schools a few years ago, he was able to say that the system, as a whole, had been extraordinarily successful. He would ask the hon. Member to visit the great school at Redhill, one of the first established in the country. That was a most successful school; and so also was the Feltham school, originally instituted under the private Act of Parliament. The Feltham school was at first not altogether successful, because it was too official; but changes in the type of management had been made, and since then the school had been most successful. Undoubtedly the inspectors under the Home Department exercised a very effective control. Their remarks and observations were not neglected It was true that these were only published in the Blue-books, but they were brought to the knowledge of the managers of the schools who were practically forced to attend to the recommendations made. He did not think the schools could be carried on without that inspection. He believed his right hon. friend the Home Secretary was fully satisfied that his Department had successfully carried on their duties, and that where defects were found, strong pressure was brought to bear on the school managers to correct them.
    MR. SOARESsaid that the Home Secretary seemed to find himself with regard to these Reformatory schools in much the same position as the managers of the Voluntary Schools would find themselves in under the Education Act. He found practically all the money, and yet had no effective control. It was said on the Debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill that the best plan to get defects cured was to write to the newspapers calling attention to them. He wanted to know whether the Home Secretary intended to follow the advice of the First Lord of the Treasury. But, at any rate he would impress on the Home Secretary that if these Reports were published in the local newspapers much good might be done.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he could not agree with all the criticisms made on the Industrial and Reformatory Schools. He had taken the trouble last winter to visit all the institutions of the kind in his own neighbourhood, and most of them, both for boys and girls were, he thought, admirably conducted. In some of the boys' schools there was a certain amount of roughness, but the girls' schools, both Protestant and Catholic he admired very thoroughly. He did not in the least desire that the remedy should be introduced of taking the personal element out of the management of the schools and putting them under a public Board. Of course there was a public Board in the neighbourhood, as well as the Home Office in spectors; but in all the successful schools, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, that success was due to the personal influence of the superintendent or the sister-in-charge. It was most striking and interesting to hear in these schools that the girls, whether drawn from the criminal classes or the industrial classes, were proud to come back in after life and bring their husbands and children to see where they had been brought up. That showed how the managers of the schools kept in touch with the girls in after life, and continued to take a personal and family interest in them. The girls were regarded, not as mere subjects to be cured, but as human, living women, and that it was which made the success of the schools which he saw and admired. He felt that the training which the girls were getting was a great deal more valuable and useful to them in after life than that which the girls received in Board Schools. In particular, he admired very much the day Industrial Schools which were doing a good work, and that part of the system ought to be extended very much. These day Industrial Schools would be able to take in a vast number of children who were not in a position to be sent away for a long time to an ordinary Industrial School, but who ought, on account of backwardness or truancy, to go to a day school in which they would be turned out excellent material.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid they had got the usual answer of the Home Secretary to matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman promised to do everything he could to get the grievances remedied. He had the Reports of his inspectors in his hands, but what had he done to carry out his promises, and in how many cases had he intervened? The hon. Member for Partick said he had been inspecting the schools about Glasgow, and had found them admirable. But there was a school in the hon. Member's constituency on which the inspector reported that the schoolrooms were defective, and the results far below the mark. There had been an excess and abuse of punishment, and the Report wound up by saying that there was to be a change in the management.
    MR. PARKER SMITH: There has been.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that that was perfectly true, but there were other cases mentioned in the Reports. He would like to know whether that change had been brought about by the Home Secretary. He rather thought it was from local circumstances. A great many of the boys had absconded, giving as an excuse that they had been whipped in the schoolroom. A good deal of public attention was called to the matter, and that was how the school management had been reformed. Then there was a school at Paisley containing 121 boys and 49 girls on which the inspector reported that the buildings were in a poor state, and that new buildings in a more suitable position were absolutely needed. He had no doubt the Home Secretary had had his attention called to the matter, but what had he done? He had been surprised at the number of defects in many of these schools. It was obvious that these were the most important schools in the country, because they were dealing with people who were bordering on crime. That was a class which should be dealt with in institutions under the control of the Government, and amply supplied with teachers; but they were
    594
    left to be dealt with by private enterprise, by people who had not the requisite funds to provide proper buildings, and how could it be expected that private people should do what was, after all, the duty of the State. The system was bad, and the same argument applied to the Training Colleges.
    MR. PLUMMERthought that before the discussion closed the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the fact that the Report from which the hon. Member for Dews-bury had quoted, and which had condemned the management of the Chadwick Memorial School at Newcastle, was three or four years old. Now he knew that, in spite of the difficult circumstances of the case, great efforts had been made to improve the condition of that particular institution. He did not think the hon. Member should leave any unfavourable impression on the minds of the Committee as to the condition of that school, unless he was perfectly sure that the condition of things then complained of still continued.
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid that he had quoted from the Report of 1899. He had not made any wholesale condemnation of Reformatory Schools, because he knew some had done and were doing good work. What he complained of was that in many of them the sanitary conditions were so bad that the boys were not taught to adopt cleanly habits. The Home Secretary had asked hon. Members to give particular instances of defects or of mal-administration; but he did not see why private Members should undertake the duty of his own inspectors. However, he would be very glad to go into any cases he personally knew with the right hon. Gentleman. For his part he was perfectly well satisfied with the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman that night, and with that he would rest content.
    MR. PLUMMERsaid that the Report for 1901 in respect of this particular institution in Newcastle referred to disclosed a very different state of things from that described by the hon. Member.

    595
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That a sum not exceeding £22,635, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum."
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that they we entitled to complain that the Report of the Lunacy Board was not yet out. That placed Members in an awkward position in discussing this Vote. Without being furnished with the latest Reports how could they bring matters of complaint under the notice of the different Departments? A Department simply put down a Vote on the Notice Paper and the Home Secretary came to the House without his papers. The right hon. Gentleman might occasionally consult with an official under the gallery, but he ordinarily dealt with general platitudes. He affected to know all about it, when any matter was brought under his notice, although probably he had never heard anything of it until it had been stated in Committee. But when the Home Secretary was asked for details he had not a word to say. That was not a fair way of dealing with the estimates. This Question of Lunacy was one in which he took a great deal of interest in many ways, and he knew that from time to time in the Reports of the Lunacy Commissioners matters of the very greatest importance as to discipline and the conditions of the asylums had been brought to the notice of the Home Office. If there was any class of buildings or administration which required
    596
    the attention of this House more than another it was these Institutions in which those who suffered from mental diseases were confined. Their object ought to be to see that the many recommendations regarding the defects in the Asylums and the improvement of the law for their management should be carried out. The Lord Chancellor had, year after year, brought in the Lunacy Bill which was intended to cure the great many defects which existed. The Bill had been for three years before the House, although he did not see it this years There were certain matters in previous Reports, and dealt with in the Lord Chancellor's Bill, which it would have been of considerable importance to discuss on the present occasion. For instance, the Employers' Liability Act did not apply to those in charge of patients in ordinary lunatic asylums, or in Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, and nothing was done to give any compensation to attendants injured in attacks made upon them by patients. Various proposals had been put before the Government, with the view of improving the position of the attendants in these asylums. He would like to know what the Government intended to do in the matter, for those men had no Civil Service pension? He was surprised to see the Home Secretary laughing; the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely ignorant of the Bill brought in by the Lord Chancellor. The Attorney General might know of it.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

The Earl Temple sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GREAT CENTRAL AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS (SOUTH YORKSHIRE RAILWAYS) BILL,

    WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL,
    YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL [H.L.]—(PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION).
    Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

RICHMOND HILL (PRESERVATION OF VIEW) BILL,
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL, HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
SWINDON UNITED GAS BILL [H.L.],
  NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL [H.L.],
    ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE AND DUKINFIELD CORPORATIONS (ALMA BRIDGE, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
    Commons amendments considered, and agreed to.
    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 12th of May and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 13th of May and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.
    PICCADILLY, CITY, AND NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
    LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP STEAD, RAILWAY (No. 1.) BILL [H.L.],
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 3.) BILL [H.L.],
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 1 AND No. 3.) BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP-STEAD RAILWAY (No. 2.) BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
    NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
  BEDFORD CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
NORWICH CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY, ETC.) BILL,
  LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL,

    CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL,
    RICHMOND DILL (PRESERVATION OF VIEW) BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.

    BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CAVEHILL AND WHITEWELL TRAMWAYS BILL,
  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.],
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.],
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.],
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.],
    CLEETHORPES IMPROVEMENT BILL,
    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),
    L. Clonbrock,
    L. Hylton,
    L. Seafield (E. Strathspey),
    L. Crawshaw,
    L. Newton (chairman);
    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: the Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.],
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.],
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.],
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.],
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [H.L.]
    Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL,
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a Tomorrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL, (No. 98),
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL, (No. 99),

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9.) BILL, (No. 100),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL, (No. 101),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL, (No. 102),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL, (No. 103),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL (NO. 104),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL (No. 105),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL (No. 106).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL, (No. 107),
    LONDON (POPLAR) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL, (No. 108),
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL, (No. 109),
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL, (No. 110),
    PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (No. 111).
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  I. Associations constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897.
  II. Associated Schools and amounts of aid grant paid.
  III. Unassociated Schools and amounts of aid grant paid, 1900–1901.

  WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA (ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1902–1903).
  Statement showing approximately, under principal subheads, the sums still required to be expended on the Army in South Africa in 1902–1903.
  Twenty-sixth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being their Annual Report for the year 1901.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2817. France (Bordeaux).
  No. 2818. Africa (Congo).
  No. 2819. Germany (German East Africa).
  No. 2820. Italy (Genoa).

  STREET TRADING CHILDREN COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
  Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the employment of children during school age, especially in street trading in the large centres of population in Ireland.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minutes, dated 5th June, 1902—
  I. Declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of inspector of technical instruction in the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required.
  II. Declaring that James Harris, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Order, dated the 6th of June, 1902, revoking one of 23rd day of April, 1902, defining a part of the port of Harwich as a foreign animals quarantine station.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Mary Quinn, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the East End Refuge, Finchley, N.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877 (RULES).
  Order in Council, dated 10th June, 1902, giving effect to a Rule of Court.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords. The same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, this is a Bill of a very simple character, and I need not detain your Lordships more than a minute in explaining its provisions. The necessity for the Bill arose in consequence of there being no definition in the poor law of Ireland of the terms "orphan"

475
and "deserted," as the result of which the Local Government Board in Ireland has been precluded from admitting a considerable number of children to the benefits of "boarding out." The English Local Government Board has power to make regulations in the matter and they have exercised it, but the Irish Local Government Board possesses no corresponding power. Therefore it became necessary, to attain the object in view, that there should be legislation to define the terms "orphan" and "deserted," and the definition embodied in his Bill is precisely that which has been adopted by the Local Government Board in England.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, the object of which is to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in respect to the boarding-out of pauper children by giving a wider interpretation to the word "orphan." If one parent of a child is dead and the other in penal servitude or in a lunatic asylum, the child is just as much an object of compassion, and is in the same position as if both the parents were dead. This Bill will enable Guardians to board out children where they are now unable to do so. The boarding out system has been tried with great advantage in many parts of Ireland, and it is very desirable to extend it.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, in rising to support the Bill of my noble friend, and to express the hope that there will be no opposition to the Second Beading, I would take this opportunity of saying that we in Ireland are very much indebted to Lord Monteagle for his efforts in regard to workhouse reform and the amelioration of the condition of those who come within the scope of the poor law.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: On behalf of the Irish Government, I have only to say that there is no objection to the Bill, but of course it is impossible to say definitely what are the prospects of passing it into law this session.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a, according to order, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

Queen Anne's Bounty Board.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Queen Anne's Bounty Board, and, meanwhile, whether any provisional appointment has been made to the joint office of Treasurer and Secretary of that Board.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, in reply to the first part of the Question of my noble friend, I have to say that the Government have prepared a Bill, which will be almost immediately introduced, dealing with the question in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee. With reference to the second part of the Question, they have found it possible to continue the work of the office without making such an appointment as that suggested. How that has been done I am not able to explain, but I am told there was no practical difficulty about it. The Bill which will be introduced will get rid of any difficulty in respect of the payment of proper dues. I wish to express my apology to my noble friend for not replying to the Question when it was asked upon a former occasion. It arose from a misunderstanding as to whose duty it was to answer the Question. I thought that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government was familiar with the facts and would answer it, but the attention of the noble Marquess had not been called to the matter. I hope the noble Viscount will accept my apology.
VISCOUNT CROSS: I am glad I have got an answer at last. I think the apology is due to your Lordships rather than to me, for if a Question is asked in proper form, and after due notice, on a matter of public business, we are entitled, I maintain, to have an answer from the Government. It so happened that a few days ago a similar Question was asked in another place, and an answer was given without the slightest hesitation, which made it very difficult

477
to account for the solemn silence and mystery with which the Question was first received in this House.
LORD BARNARD: I only rise to say that last session I put a Question on the same subject and to the same effect, and received no answer.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.