Sitting of 11 March 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, that the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, have leave to sit this day notwithstanding the Sitting of the House.(Mr. Loder.)
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ABERCARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BROADSTAIRS GAS BILL, BROMLEY GAS BILL, LIMPSFIELD AND OXTED WATER BILL,
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Sir SAVILE CROSSLEY reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Wolverhampton Corporation Water Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. Richard K Hughes, of Bridgnorth, Sanitary Inspector, was essential to their case, and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Richard E. Hughes do attend the said Committee to morrow, at Two of the Clock.
  Ordered, That Mr. Richard E. Hughes, of Bridgnorth, Sanitary Inspector, do
  1002
  attend the Committee on Group D of Private Bills Tomorrow, at Two of the Clock.

  READING GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Grey Field; Dunston Lodge; and Bank Hall Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Glasgow (two); Orr and Lochty; Scottish Trout Anglers' Association; and Paisley; to lie upon the Table.
  HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Westminster; Blackpool; Kirton in Lindsay; and Newcastle; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Rose Hill; Grey Field; and Bank Hall Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petitions for legislation: From Halifax; and Dornoch; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favou: From Friockheim; Lerwick; Swinhill; Fortrose; Nairn; Greenock; Hopeman; Leith; Glasgow (two); Ecclefechan; Glengarnock; Dumbarton; Saint Andrews; and Carnoustie; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Blackpool; and Tunbridge Wells; to lie upon the Table.
  SASTRY, YANAMANDRA SITHARAMASWAMY.
  Petition of Yanamandra Sitharamaswamy Sastry, for inquiry into his "Choultry Scheme;" to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Paper [presented 10th March] to be printed. [No. 95.]
  TREATY SERIES (NO. 4, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of Brazil relative to the Boundary between Brazil and British Guiana. Signed at London, 6th November, 1901. Ratification exchanged at Rio de Janeiro, 28th January, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (NO. 5, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and Persia extending the system of Telegraphic Communication between Europe and India through Persia. Signed at Tehran, 16th August, 1901. Ratifications exchanged at Tehran, 13th January, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Abstract Accounts presented for the year ended 31st March, 1901, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 96.]
  NAVY (DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, 1900–1901).
  Annual Accounts presented for 1900–1901 of Shipbuilding and Dockyard Transactions, etc., with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  (3.35.) QUESTIONS.

    South African War—Martial Law—Treatment of Dutch British Subjects.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the Rev. Mr. Weich, a British subject, and the Dutch Reformed minister of Bethesda, in Cape Colony, who was deported many months ago to Port Alfred, and has never been charged with or tried for any offence, is still detained; and will he state whether it is intended either to try or to liberate the Rev. Mr. Radloff, a British subject, and the Dutch Reformed minister of Pearston, in Cape Colony, who was arrested in March of last year, and kept for three months in gaol at Graaff Reinet, and finally, there being no evidence of any offence againt him, was deported to Port Alfred, where he is still detained.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have no information on the points raised in the Question.
    MR. PIRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire in South Africa, or are we to understand that this House has no control whatever over treatment under military law in that country?
    MR. BRODRICK: The House has complete control, but in these cases the military authorities are the best judges as to what course to take.
    MR. PIRIE: Then the House has no control.

    Treatment of Travellers from the Cape— Passengers on the "Persic."
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two British subjects, who have recently come to this country from Cape Colony with the full permission of the base commandant at Cape Town, were, on coining on board the ship "Persic," taken into the captain's cabin by a military officer and stripped naked, on the ground that they must be searched, and whether he will take steps to prevent any such treatment in the future of British subjects against whom there is no charge.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no information as to the incident referred to in the Question.

    Commandant Scheeper's Trial.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the promised Return, including information as to the proceedings of the court-martial which condemned Commandant Scheepers, will be issued to Members, and if such Return will state the circumstances attending the execution of Commandant Scheepers and his condition of health at that time.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Return will, I hope, shortly be ready. The reply to the second sentence is in the negative.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will request Lord Kitchener to furnish a statement of the circumstances attending the execution of Commandant Scheepers on the 18th January.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member yesterday.†

    Lord Kitchener's Despatches—Suggestions as to Delay in Publication, etc.
    MR. T. M. HEALY,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any despatch of Lord Kitchener, previous to that of Saturday, contained a suggestion or request that its publication should be delayed or the contents modified.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; but I have received requests at different times from Lord Kitchener that caution should be exercised as regards the publication of despatches in any case in which there is doubt.

    Reinforcements for Lord Kitchener.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the success of the Boers announced yesterday, he can state what measures are being taken, or contemplated to he taken, to send Lord Kitchener further large reinforcements,
    † See page 868.
    1006
    to enable him to vigorously proseoute the war with fresh troops and renewed energy.
    MR. BRODRICK: Reinforcements are continually reaching Lord Kitchener, and some 6,000 Yeomanry will be embarked in the course of next month. A large number of drafts, both cavalry and infantry are also ready. A full supply of horses is being kept up. Lord Kitchener will have all assistance for which he may ask.
    MR. LAMBERT: Are any special reinforcements going out on account of the disaster announced yesterday?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not think that any special reinforcements are required beyond the very large ones already arranged for.

    Farm Burning—Concentration Camps.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what provision was made between July and December, 1900, to give shelter and food to the numbers of women and children turned out by the burning or destruction of their homes during those months, and in what places and in what way this provision was made; whether any correspondence passed between Lord Kitchener and Her late Majesty's Government during these months as to the provision to be made for such persons turned out in clearing the country; and, if so, at what dates were such communications made.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on Friday last on this subject.†
    MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman not publish the correspondence asked for in the second part of the Question.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; I have explained repeatedly that what was done was a matter of military necessity, and that Lord Kitchener made such arrangements as were possible.
    † See page 711.
    MR. CHANNING: I think information ought to be obtained on this point.

    Yeomanry and Battle Clasps.
    SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Yeomanry regiments which, through their headquarters, furnished contingents to the Imperial Yeomanry for service in South Africa, will he permitted to bear upon their crests and regimental badges the names of battle clasps won by their respective contingents.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The privilege of hearing upon the crests and regimental badges the names of battle clasps is only conferred upon units whose headquarters were present at the action concerned. I am afraid it would not be feasible to extend this privilege in the direction suggested.

    Meat Contract—Position of Mr. Isaac Joel.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in March,1884, Mr. Isaac Joel, of the firm of Barnato & Co., was arrested in Kimberley on a charge of illicit diamond buying, but was released on bail and then fled from South Africa; that his bail of £4,000 was estreated in the Kimberley Special Court on 27th May, 1884; that the Metropolitan Police, in July and August, 1884, circulated a woodcut portrait of this gentleman in the Police Gazette; also that Chief Justice Sir H. De Villiers, on 5th May, 1885, in the case of Barnato v. Editor of the Cape Argus, stated that it was quite clear that by one Isaac Joel an offence was committed, referring to the above charge; and whether this gentleman, or his brother Solomon, the other partner in the firm of Barnato Brothers, has been accepted by His Majesty's Government as a guarantor for the new meat contract in South Africa.
    MR. BRODRICK: As regards Mr. Isaac Joel I have no information in these matters. Mr. S. Joel is a director of the Imperial Supply and Cold Storage Company.
    MR. PIRIE: Is it not the case that this person was not arrested because the warrant for his arrest was withdrawn at the instance of his partner, Mr. Rhodes?
    MR. BRODRICK: I know nothing of that.
    MR. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that Mr. Joel is one of those whose names were given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman as a guarantor of the meat contract on behalf of one of the companies concerned, and why was not this statement given to the House at the time?
    MR. BRODRICKwas understood to reply that the name was given to the House.

    Meat Contract—The Contracting Company.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the company which is to carry out the Bergl contract has yet been registered; and, if so, when and where; and whether the incorporators are the persons who originally undertook that such a company should be formed.
    LORD STANLEY: The company has been registered at Pretoria. I am not aware whether the persons who originally undertook to form the company, as shown in the paper presented to Parliament, were technically the "Incorporators," but the persons whose names I mentioned to the House are carrying through the company.

    Mr. Logan's Maxim Gun.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that in May, 1900, a Maxim gun was presented to, His Majesty's Government by Mr. Logan, a member of the Cape Legislative Council, and that Mr. Logan, on 23rd May, 1900, sent a telegram to Colonel Spence Douglas stating that he would pay the men using such gun a bonus of £1 for every rebel shot, but that he should deduct 25 per cent. for all prisoners taken, he has information whether this offer was communicated to the men working this gun.
    LORD STANLEY: As stated to the House in 1900, Mr. Logan presented a Maxim gun to the corps (the Duke of Edinburgh's Volunteer Rifles) commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Spence, who was killed at Douglas. I have no information as to the telegram mentioned.
    MR. PIRIE: May I ask whether, as the proceedings mentioned in this Question were conducted under the guise of loyalism, the noble Lord will endeavour to unmask them.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Army Canteens in South Africa—Victoria West Road—Position of Mr. Logan.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Colonel of the 3rd West Riding Regiment, in September, 1901, gave orders that a dry canteen should be established at Victoria West Road, because of the rates for provisions charged to soldiers by the only store keeper in that district, one Shaw, and that a dry canteen was established, when provisions were sold to the soldiers at prices 200 per cent. less than charged by Shaw; that shortly afterwards the Commandant of Victoria West Road received a telegram from a Mr. Logan, a Member of the Cape Legislative Council, claiming damages at the rate of £500 per month by reason of such store having been opened on his land; whether Mr. Logan has any contract with His Majesty's Government for provisions for the troops; and if he will ascertain if the store at Victoria West Road was in point of fact the property of Mr. Logan.
    LORD STANLEY: I have no information on this matter, but it is believed that Mr. Logan has secured from the Cape Government a monopoly of the supply of refreshments at all railway stations in Cape Colony.

    Remounts—Military Court of Inquiry— Terms of Reference.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House what are the terms of reference on which the Court of Inquiry into the administration of the Remount Department are conducting their inquiry.
    CAPTAIN NORTONhad a similar Question on the Paper.
    MR. BRODRICK: The terms of reference were as follow—
    "The court will take evidence on oath, and carefully consider the following matters, and will record their opinion on the various questions raised.
    "The court will consider the administration of the Remounts Department since the appointment of Major General Truman as Inspector General of Remounts, January, 1899, and report—

    "1. Whether the purchase of horses at home and abroad has been conducted on the best system for the public service;

    "2. Whether the officers selected for purchasing remounts at home and abroad were suitable and competent;

    "3. Whether the arrangements for shipments of the remounts as they arrived at the ports of embarkation were satisfactory;

    "4. Whether the arrangements for the care of the animals during the voyage were in all respects complete, and whether the conducting officers, veterinary surgeons, and attendants accompanying the ships were competent and satisfactory;

    "5. Whether, in cases where the condition of the animals on landing was found to be unsatisfactory, prompt and sufficient measures were taken to prevent the recurrence of the evils reported;

    "6. Whether a regular system of reports, detailing whether the proper stamp of animals had been provided for the particular services required of them, was called for as a guidance to the relative value of the various sources of supply;

    "7. Whether, in cases of alleged fraud or negligence, effective measures were recommended for dealing with those concerned;

    "8. Whether, in view of the large demand on the Department, proper care was taken to obtain all available information as to sources of supply;

    "9. Whether, allowing for the great strain on the Department, due care and ability were shown in dealing with the demand for remounts."

    Remounts—Offer of Horses from New South Wales.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Agent General of New South Wales offered the Remount Department or the War Office from 1,000 to 3,000 suitable horses at about sixteen guineas for a cavalry horse, thirty guineas for an artillery horse, and twelve guineas for a horse for mounted infantry; and, if so, what reply was sent to him, and how many horses purchased.
    LORD STANLEY: The offer was made as stated in the Question in August, 1900, and on the 17th of that month a reply was sent to the effect that only a small number of animals were being purchased in Australia at that time, and those for the Indian Government; but the offer was communicated to the Remount Officer in Australia, who was directed to put himself in communication with Mr. Willis in view of the further supply which might be required.

    Purchase and Rejection of Horses in England.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what districts in England have been visited during February for the purchase of horses for Africa, and what quantities have been purchased, and why no horses were bought in the Spalding district when recently visited by the War Office buyers.
    LORD STANLEY: Forty-seven places in England were visited by purchasing officers in February, and 1,906 horses were purchased. An officer visited Spalding, but found the horses shown there to be unsuitable for Army purposes in South Africa.
    MR. MANSFIELD: Were they not better than the wretched animals sent from Hungary?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Demand for and Supply of Horses for South Africa.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the supply of horses being always equal to the demand from South Africa, can he state who was responsible for the monthly average demand of 10,000 horses being allowed to fall to 2,000 during October and November, 1900; were the orders to purchase remounts also reduced or stopped at that date; if so, can he state what orders were issued to the Remount Department at that time, and the dates of such orders.
    MR. BRODRICK: Will the right hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a
    1012
    similar question put by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen on Thursday, 27th February.†

    Indian Boots for British Soldiers.
    SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether boots made in India for the use of the British Army are subject to the same standard of examination as British-made boots undergo at the Government Clothing Stores at Pimlico; and if so, will he say where that examination takes place.
    LORD STANLEY: The inspection is as rigid as that at Pimlico, and takes, place in India.

    Increase of Army Pay.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on or after 1st April, 1902, all non-commissioned officers and men of every branch of the service will, if qualified as stipulated, receive an addition of 2d. to their present daily pay; and whether, on and after 1st April, 1904, all non-commissioned officers, and men of every branch of the service will, if permitted to re-engage to complete eight years with the colours and four years with the reserve, receive a further addition of 6d. to their then daily pay.
    MR. BRODRICK: The reply to both Questions is the affirmative. The last paragraph is subject to the conditions as to deduction for shooting or bad conduct, which I named to the House on Tuesday last. My hon. friend will understand that the expression "every branch of the service" means every branch of the regular service.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Are the Militiamen to get the extra 2d.?
    MR. BRODRICKwas understood to reply that this hardly applied to their case. The object of the new arrangement was to induce soldiers to prolong their service with the colours.
    † See preceding volume, p. 1273

    Militia Pay.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if the extra 6d. a day will be given during embodiment to Militiamen of two years or more service.
    LORD STANLEY: The extra 6d. is intended to encourage mea to extend their service, in order to maintain a constant supply of drafts to the regiments abroad. This argument would hardly apply to the Militia, even when embodied.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is it intended to give the extra 2d. a day to the Militia?
    LORD STANLEY: I should not like to answer that Question without notice.

    Enlistments in the Imperial Yeomanry.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I Leg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the enlistment of the Imperial Yeomanly was carried out by officers of the Medical Army Department or by local private practitioners necessarily unfamiliar with the details of the standard required for Regulars; whether he is aware that in the printed instructions issued there was a paragraph which stated that there was no need to reject men for minor defects and deformities, as the standard need not be so high as for Regulars and whether these instructions were seen and sanctioned by the Director General of the Army Medical Department before being issued.
    MR. BRODRICK: In consequence of the absence of a large proportion of the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps in South Africa, the bulk of the men were examined by local practitioners. Instructions were issued that the conditions required of a recruit enlisting for the full term of service in the Army might be modified. Instructions were issued to the effect that if the recruit was free from organic disease or other serious defect likely to prevent him from working during the continuance of the campaign, he might be accepted. I have not been able to trace whether the late Director General was consulted, but the question was rather military than medical.

    Hinckley Vaccination Prosecutions.
    MR. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent vaccination prosecutions at Hinckley, in Leicestershire, where, notwithstanding the protests of the defendants as to the legal sufficiency of the summonses, fines were imposed on the advice of the magistrate's clerk, under section 29 of The Vaccination Act, 1867, and, in default of payment by the defendants, their houses were entered and their goods seized, while in other cases the defendants paid the fines under duress; whether he is aware that subsequently the clerk of the magistrates discovered that the defence was a good one, that the cases did not come within the said Act, and that the convictions were illegal, and that the Chairman of the Bench, on a later day, announced in Court that this was the case, but although he was empowered to do so under section 31 of the same Act, refused to give any of the defendants their costs, or the fair compensation provided for under this section; whether, having regard to the hardship inflicted on these defendants, he can see his way to indemnify or reimburse them for the expenses they have been put to, and for the damage they have sustained by the seizure of their goods, and what other steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have inquired into this case, and have received a very full explanation, which is too long to embody in an answer to a Question. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that I am quite satisfied that there is no reason for any action on my part.

    Seven Days a Week Workers.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER,: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing the number of men in England and Wales employed in manufacturing trades carried on day and night, who work seven days a week; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiry to be made.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: The Board of Trade have no

    1015
    official information which would enable me to give the figures asked for, and an inquiry such as is suggested would involve much time and labour, and would probably not yield satisfactory results. If, however, the hon. Member will communicate with the Board of Trade, they will endeavour to see how it is possible to institute an inquiry of more limited scope which may perhaps serve the purpose which he has in view.

    Patent Acts Report.
    MR. JOSEPH LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Solicitor General, as a member of the Committee appointed on 20th May, 1900, by the Board of Trade to inquire into the working of the Patent Acts, presented a Minority Report, which Report, owing to his illness, was not appended to the printed Report of the Committee dated 10th January, 1901; and whether there is any objection to such Minority Report of the Solicitor General being now printed and laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My right hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, as stated in the Report of the Committee, was prevented by indisposition from signing the Report and from appending any note to it. Subsequent to the publication of the Report he communicated to me the note (I cannot call it a Minority Report) which he had intended should be appended to the Report itself, and which, he informs me, he had previously submitted to the Committee. I shall be happy to lay the note upon the Table of the House.

    Milk-Blended Butter.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a recent judgment in the High Court on the subject of blended butter, by which it was decided that butter containing the utmost quantity of water which it can be made to hold can be still sold as a genuine article if an announcement, which may never catch his eye, is made to the purchaser of the percentage of water contained in it; whether he will consider the propriety of making a regulation, under section 4
    1016
    of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, which shall define the proportion of water in butter which shall raise the presumption that the article is not genuine, and protect ignorant purchasers from an inferior article.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (MR. HANBURY,): I do not think that the decision went quite so far as my right hon. friend's question supposes. But the decision appears to imply that, on due notice being given, almost any mixture of butter can be sold under that name. I shall fix a butter standard as soon as those most concerned have had an opportunity of seeing the evidence submitted to the Butter Committee, which evidence I hope will be issued in a few days.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the opinion of the Cork butter merchants be taken into consideration?
    MR. HANBURY: Everything given in the evidence will be taken into consideration. I have not seen the evidence myself yet.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will consider the advisability of preventing, by legislation or otherwise, the practice of putting pickle into butter at the time of manufacture to preserve it, from being classed with the fraudulent practice of forcing new milk by machinery into butter already manufactured in order to give the appearance of freshly-made butter; and, having regard to the fact that milk becomes dangerous to health when so incorporated with butter, whether he will take steps to prevent foreign or Colonial butters into which milk has been forced from being publicly advertised as butter made in Great Britain as has been recently done by a certain firm.
    MR.HANBURY: Until I have had the opportunity of reading the evidence given before the Butter Regulation Committee I could not properly express any definite opinion on the important point raised in the hon. Member's question.
    MR. JOYCE: I did not refer in my question to the evidence given before the Departmental Committee. That is a

    1017
    different question altogether. I want to know as to forcing new milk into butter by machinery.
    MR. HANBURY: The two things are so closely bound up together that I do not feel justified in expressing an opinion until I have seen the evidence collected on the subject.

    Sheep Worrying in Scotland.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when he expects to be able to introduce a Bill dealing with sheep-worrying in Scotland.
    MR. HANBURY: I am considering such a Bill—but I cannot at present say when it can be introduced.

    Swine Fever Regulations.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture will direct the local inspector, in all cases where he is doubtful as to the existence of swine fever, to await a visit to the premises by a veterinary inspector of the Board, and his report on the case, before serving on the occupier a declaration making the premises a swine fever infected place; and in view of the fact that it is the practice of the Board, when their veterinary inspector has reported to the Board that the suspected outbreak of swine fever is a false alarm, not to send either such inspector or the local inspector to visit the premises again before declaring them free from swine fever, whether he can state how the Board knows when the premises may with reasonable safety be declared free; and will he explain what advantage or protection is gained by having a period of probation after the veterinary inspector has reported the non-existence of the disease.
    MR. HANBURY: The first suggestion by my hon. friend would, I fear, it carried into practice, cause mischievous delay in isolating the premises and in taking the other necessary measures of precaution. The veterinary inspector mentioned in the question is often the local veterinary surgeon, and the external symptoms of the disease are so uncertain that it is quite possible that the animals actually slaughtered
    1018
    and examined may not be those most affected by the disease, or may even not be affected at all. The fortnight's probation is necessary to guard against this danger.

    Swine Fever in the Eastern Counties.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of swine fever in the Eastern Counties, and whether he proposes to take any steps with reference to abolition of compensation or otherwise in the matter.
    MR. HANBURY: As regards the Eastern Counties as a whole, namely, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, the outbreaks of swine fever for the first ten weeks are considerably less than in any of the preceding three years. But in Essex itself there have been eighteen cases, as against sixteen last year. We have already put in force two Infected Areas Orders in Essex, and the question of extending them is under consideration.
    MAJOR RASCH: Is it not easy to produce swine fever by feeding the animals on maize and keeping them short of water?
    MR. HANBURY: I have heard that there is a belief among farmers to that effect.

    Continuation Schools in the Highland Crofting Counties.
    MR. WEIR,: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that, under Articles 50 and 51 of the Continuation Class Code, the grant is so regulated that the managers of some of the continuation schools in the poorer districts of the Highland Crofting Counties have declared it to be impossible to keep the schools open owing to their inability to raise the requisite local contribution. And, in view of the amount to which the rates in these districts have already risen, will he state whether the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider the Code at an early date, with a view to its being so modified as to admit: of these continuation schools being maintained.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am afraid it is not possible to add anything

    1019
    to the reply which I gave to the Member for Orkney and Shetland on 3rd February last,† a copy of which was sent for the information of the hon. Member in reply to an application by his Secretary. The Revised Continuation Class Code is not placed before Parliament until May in each year.

    Scottish Congested Districts—Bernera, Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any action has yet been taken by the Secretary for Scotland or the Congested Districts Board with a view to provide land for the landless cottars and fishermen of Bernera, Island of Lewis.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have nothing very material to add to the full answer which I gave to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member on 7th June last.† On the 1st October last the Congested Districts Board wrote fully to the County Council of Ross and Cromarty in regard to the application of the Bernera cottars, and the County Council communicated the substance of the letter to the cottars themselves. Since that date, no further application has been made.

    Geological Survey.
    SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the recent Departmental Committee on the Geological Survey; and if he will further consider the advisability of publishing in future colour-printed six-inch geological maps.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)—(for Sir J. GORST): The Report of the Committee is a confidential document, and it is not proposed to lay it on the Table. The question as to the form in which the results of the survey can be made available to the public on the six-inch geological maps is under consideration.

    Established Clerk Abstractors— Compulsory Retirements.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the
    † See (4) Debates cii., 186.
    † See (4) Debates xciv., 1327.
    1020
    Treasury whether the Treasury will inquire and report in regard to the compulsory retirement of three established clerk abstractors with less than forty years service from the War Office at the ages of sixty, sixty-two, and sixty respectively, these clerks being established after considerable temporary service, and retired on pension less than they could have earned had they served till they completed forty years, or by remaining to the age of sixty-five, as is permitted to clerks in other Departments who entered the Civil Service on identical terms; and, seeing that Clause 7 of The Superannuation Act, 1859, provides for compensation in cases of compulsory retirement or reorganisation of a Department, and that the right of appeal for Treasury decisions, under Clause 2 of this Act, was withheld by the War Office in the case of one of these clerks who claimed the right of appeal to the Treasury, whether he will state what action he will take.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): This matter is in the discretion of the War Office. Orders in Council of 15th August, 1890, and 29th November, 1898, empower the head of any Department to retire any officer of that Department at the age of sixty, on such pension as, by the length of his service, he is qualified to receive. The power given to the Treasury by Section 2 of the Act of 1859 is limited to deciding whether an officer has a claim to superannuation. It does not touch the power of retirement given to heads of Departments by the two Orders mentioned above.

    Derry and Donegal Union Boundaries.
    THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the solicitors for the guardians of the poor of the Londonderry Union applied to the Local Government Board, requesting to be furnished with a copy of any memorial or other document received by the Board in regard to the inquiry on oath directed to be held into the proposal to transfer certain portions of the Londonderry Union to unions situated in the County of Donegal, and that the Local Government Board refused to furnish the same; and

    1021
    whether he will consider the advisability of this information being given, in view of the fact that the Poor Law Guardians intend, in the interest of the union which they represent, to oppose the proposed transfer; and whether, having regard to the amount of the sum which will be expended by the various bodies concerned in this inquiry, the Local Government Board will reconsider the matter whether a prima facie case has been made to justify an inquiry sufficient to satisfy the Local Government Act, Section 68, sub-section (3).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The documents were such as, in the opinion of the Board, established a prima facie case for inquiry, and were, when asked for, in the possession of the Inspector. In all such eases the decision of the Board is based upon the evidence taken at the in Inquiry, and not on anything in the Resolutions or applications asking for the inquiry. The usual course adopted, and which it is proposed to follow in this instance, is to open the Inquiry, hear all the evidence in favour of the proposal, and then adjourn for two or three weeks, to enable the opponents of the scheme to prepare their case. It would only involve the opponents of the scheme in unnecessary expense if they were to frame their case on what may turn out to be the irrelevant matters contained in the documents in question. The Board see no sufficient reason for reconsidering their decision to hold an inquiry.

    Irish Local Government Contracts.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Article 14 of the Local Government (Transitory Provisions) No. 2 Order, 1898, applies to the coming elections as well as to the first elections; and, seeing that there are a number of contracts made by the Grand Juries for periods of five and seven years which are still unexpired, whether the sureties for the contractors on such contracts will he eligible for election again as at the first elections.
    MR. ATKINSON: This is an abstract question on the construction of the Order which I must decline to answer. The matter is one to be determined in a court
    1022
    of law, and any opinion given by me would not hind the parties interested.

    Technical Instruction in Co. Cork.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Committee of Technical Instruction for the County of Cork have prepared a scheme of technical instruction for the said county; and seeing that this scheme was discussed with, and approved by, the officials of the Department of Technical Instruction in Dublin, whether he can explain the delay in giving effect to it.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the Cork County Council and the Department of Agriculture, and to the proceedings at the last meeting of the County Council; is he aware that the County Council protested against the action of the Department in retarding the adoption of the scheme of technical instruction, which was prepared with care and deliberation; and, whether he can state what reasons, if any, are put forward by the Department to account for the delay in putting the Technical Instruction Act into force in Cork County.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the action of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the proposed scheme of technical instruction for the County of Cork has been condemned by the Cork County Council; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend has received from the County Council a copy of the correspondence that has taken place between the County Council and the Department of Technical Instruction. Inquiry is being made in the matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will postpone their Questions until Thursday.

    Police and United Irish League Meeting.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

    1023
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in several parts of Ireland police are stationed at the doors and windows of rooms where branches of the United Irish League meet while such meetings are in progress; will he state the object of such action; and see that this conduct is not continued.
    MR. ATKINSON: Where a branch of the United Irish League has, instigated acts of boycotting and intimidation, the police have instructions to attend in close proximity to the place of meeting with the twofold object of inspiring confidence in the victims of the intimidation, and of collecting evidence in the event of attempts being made to renew it. The police will continue to pursue this course of action where necessary.
    MR. POWER: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman identify himself with that policy.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first Lord of the Treasury, when Chief Secretary, in introducing his Coercion Bill, promised that there should be no interference with indoor meetings?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Irish Lunatic Asylums.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution adopted by the Waterford County Council with reference to the present system of supporting lunatic asylums; and whether it is the intention of the Government to do anything in the direction of meeting the views of the Members of the County Council in this matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: The question to which the resolution refers was embraced, with many others, in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. The Report of the Commission in respect of England has been presented to Parliament. Pending the publication of the Report in respect of Ireland, the Government are debarred from expressing an opinion on the subject.

    Irish Estates in the English Chancery Court.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are several Irish estates in the English Court of Chancery, and if a Return will be granted giving the names of the owners, receivers, and mortgagees, also the area and rental of each estate, with the date on which it was placed in Court.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Irish Government have no information on, or control over, the matters referred to.

    Slade Pier.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Slade Pier affords only an unsafe refuge for fishing boats; and, seeing that the Wexford County Council recommended that a protecting wall should be built which would cost only £200, will he order inquiries to be made with a view to giving the necessary grant.
    MR. ATKINSON: The question is now being considered by the Department of Agriculture.

    Intermediate Education—Examiner in Irish.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Inchigeela Branch of the Gaelic League protesting against the appointment by the Intermediate Education Commissioners of a foreigner as examiner in Irish; and, seeing that this appointment has been received with dissatisfaction in all parts of Ireland, will he state what steps it is proposed to take in future to appoint an examiner in the Irish language other than a foreigner.
    MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend has already stated that the appointment of examiners in Irish, as in other subjects, is a matter which must be left to the Board of Intermediate Education. They are experts in educational matters and fully capable of judging of the fitness of the gentlemen appointed by them to this position.

    1025
    Any intervention on the part of the Government would be uncalled for and unwarranted.

    Irish Land and Labour Association— Macroom Resolution.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed by a convention of delegates from branches of the Irish Land and Labour Association in the Macroom district, appealing to the Department of Agriculture to extend a portion of its time and attention to the condition of the labouring classes, requesting it to appoint a qualified and responsible officer whose sole duty would be to look after their interests, and pointing out other directions in which the Department could with advantage encourage and assist the rural labourers; and, will he state what concessions will be made by the Department of Agriculture to the representations it has received in this connection.
    MR. ATKINSON: The resolution has not been received by the Department of Agriculture. If, however, a copy be forwarded to the Department the suggestions will be considered.

    Irish Judges' Charges.
    Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the charge of the right hon. Mr. Justice Johnston to the Grand Jury of the County Limerick, at the spring assizes in Limerick, on Friday last, in which his Lordship, referring to the statistics of crime and observations on the state of the county furnished to him by the constabulary, said that the Grand Jury knew the state of the county better than he, and that it would be impertinent in him to give them second-hand information which, if inaccurate, they would treat with contempt; and whether, having regard to the recent reprobation of the system by the Irish Lord Chief Baron in his charge to the Grand Jury at Mullingar, he will consider the advisability of putting an end to the practice of presenting Judges of Assize before their charges to Grand Juries with constabulary reports and comments on the state of the country, and providing
    1026
    some other means for the communications of the information contained in these reports to the public.
    MR. ATKINSON: My attention has been drawn to the newspaper report of Mr. Justice Johnson's charge. I have already stated in reply to a Question of the hon. Member, that the report of the charge of the Lord Chief Baron which I have seen does not bear the construction he has put upon it, and contains no reprobation of the system whatever. The answer to the last query is in the negative.

    Wexford Port Dues.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Wexford steamers doing a weekly cross channel trade pay 50 per cent. and that sailing vessels pay 75 per cent. on their gross registered tonnage; and whether he will order a thorough inquiry with a view to granting a Provisional Order to compel tramp steamers that now contribute only a few shillings to the expenses of the port to pay 50 per cent. on the gross registered tonnage.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware of the proportionate dues paid by steamers and sailing vessels respectively at the Port of Wexford. The Board of Trade have before them at the present time an application from the Wexford Harbour Commissioners for a Provisional Order authorising them to charge dues on the gross tonnage of steamships and steam-tugs instead of on the net register tonnage. Before coming to a decision in the matter, the Board will give an opportunity to the promoters of the order and to those who have sent in objections, of being heard.

    Limerick Post Office—Staff Duties.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the chief clerk, assistant chief clerk, and two sorting clerks and telegraphists, attached to the Limerick Post Office, have been performing duties in excess of their ordinary official hours without payment for Sundays and week days for a considerable time past; whether in the case of the two sorting clerks and tele-

    1027
    graphists, the duty is compulsory; and, if not, can he explain why it is done voluntarily; and, whether, if the extra attendance is necessary, provision will be made in the usual way. At the same time I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the present duties in the Limerick Post Office are in accordance with the latest revision; and, if so, can he state what facilities have been given to the duly qualified members of the staff to obtain employment on the telegraph side with a view to their continued efficiency.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The circumstances are as stated by the hon. Member in his first Question. They are due to exceptional causes, and it is hoped that in the course of a few weeks the need for any unusual attendance will cease. The extra duty performed has been voluntary. In reply to the second Question, it is true that the duties of the Limerick Post Office generally are not yet fully in accordance with the revision as recently sanctioned, and there are still some officers who have not been able to become proficient in telegraphy, but steps are being taken for placing all the arrangements on a satisfactory footing.

    School Board Night Schools.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that, under the minute of the Board of Education of 3rd July last, it will be impossible for School Boards to draw upon the School Board rates after 31st July next, on account of the instruction in public elementary night schools of any pupils over fifteen years of age; whether, seeing that on the official figures for the night school session, 1899–1900, this would have meant that 68 per cent. of the 332,042 pupils then enrolled in School Board night schools, would have been shut out from rate-aided night school instruction; and, whether, seeing that the current figures would involve pupils in somewhat similar proportions, it is the intention of the Government to take steps to remove this disability before the 31st July next.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A.J.BALFOUR,): The point referred to in the Question
    1028
    has not escaped the attention of the Government. I can assure the hon. Member that the assurance given by the President of the Council in another place has not been lost sight of, and, of course. we shall have to provide for the contingency.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Do I gather that the right hon. Gentleman gives a similar assurance to the House here today?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

    Irish Land Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state if the promised Irish Land Bill will be introduced before Easter.
    MR. CAREW: I also beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the desirability of having the proposed Irish Land Bill printed and in the hands of Members during the recess, he will name a day for its introduction before Easter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give a positive pledge, but I hope that the promised Irish Land Bill will he introduced sometime before the Easter holidays.

    Administration of Government Departments
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the desirability of an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House or otherwise into the work of the administrative department with a view to a redistribution or re-arrangement of the work between the Government offices, and more particularly with a view to placing matters relating especially to industry and commerce under the supervision and control of the Board of Trade.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not pretend that the present distribution of the work of the Government Department is perfect, but I cannot promise at the present time such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests.

    Vote on Account—Education Estimate.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether,

    1029
    having regard to the fact that the Vote on Account involves an Estimate of £4,500,000 for the Board of Education, any opportunity will be afforded for a discussion on the administration of the Board before the Vote is disposed of.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Irish Members have by arrangement the first place on the Report of the Vote on Account. I do not know how long the discussion they propose to initiate will last, but I cannot hold out much hope to the hon. Gentleman that time will also be found for a discussion on Education.
    DR. MACNAMARA: If the Irish discussion takes the whole of Thursday, then there will be no opportunity for discussing this Estimate of four and a half millions!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman talks as if the four and a half millions were an exceptional matter: I do not think so. I certainly consider that the discussion on Report of the Vote on Account should finish on the evening it is taken.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
    MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and ManufacturesߞMr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Black, and Sir Robert Penrose-FitzGerald; and had appointed in substitution: The Lord Advocate, Mr. John Dewar, and Mr. Charles M'Arthur.
    MR. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure (during the consideration of the Midwives Bill):—Mr. Secretary Ritchie; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Jesse Collings.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

    1. "That, in the case of the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction
    1030
    Railway and Dock (South Yorkshire Extension Lines) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition 'the late Earl Fitzwilliam (by William Henry Wentworth, his Attorney),' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

    2. "That, in the case of the Sheffield, Rotherham, and Bawtry Railway Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition of 'the late Earl Fitzwilliam (by William Henry Wentworth Fitzwilliam, his Attorney),' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

    3. "That, in the ease of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6A, 6B, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 be struck out of the Bill."

    4. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan District Railway, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to he dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

    5. "That, in the case of the Renfrew Harbour Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    Resolutions agreed to.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intitled "An Act for the Registration Plumbers." Plumbers' Registration Bill [Lords].
    SUPPLY-REPORT—(3RD MARCH).
    Resolution reported:—

CIVIL SERVICES EXCESSES 1900–1901.
"Thatasum, not exceeding £155 2s. 5d. be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1901, viz.:—

CLASS I.

£

s.

d.

Vote 11. Peterhead Harbour

145

2

5

CLASS III.

Vote 7. Prisons, England and the Colonies

10

0

0

£155

2

5

Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY—REPORT—(10TH MARCH)
Resolution reported:—
ARMY ESTIMATES, 1902–1903.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,332,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–1903.
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,356,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £ be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Building, and Repairs, at Home And Abroad, including the cost of Superintendance, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
4. Sec.1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,661,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY—COMMITTEE
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee)
Mr. Jeffreys (Hampshire, N.) in the chair.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–1903.
1. £782,100, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.

1032

2. £1,160,700, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.

3. £350,100, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.

4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £246,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1903."

SIR CHARLES DILKEasked what steps were being taken towards altering the Navy Medical Service in the way suggested ill the debates a year previously. The whole tendency of naval medical opinion was now, he believed, more and more in favour of attaching hospital ships, both in war and in peace, to all squadrons, and even of allowing those hospital ships, to accompany the squadrons on their cruises. The necessity for having special hospital ships was becoming more and more recognised, and he would like to know what the Admiralty intended doing.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)said the principle of attaching hospital ships to the squadrons in time of peace was not to be extended, but provision had been made for rapidly equipping hospital ships in time of war. The whole fittings for several ships had been provided, and arrangements made for medical officers to accompany them. Large quantities of additional medical stores had also been provided, and there were now four ships immediately available. There was no intention of carrying the policy of having hospital ships afloat with the squadrons any further at present, there being sanatoria on land which were deemed sufficient for present purposes in time of peace.
MR. WHITLEYasked for an explanation of the fact that, while there was practically no increase in the total number of persons employed —the total being 138 as against 137 last year—the salaries had risen by £4,800. He suggested that the increase was altogether

1033
out of proportion and that the Committee ought to have some explanation.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that medical officers in the Army were about to receive higher emoluments, and it was thought necessary, in order to maintain the high standard of efficiency in the naval medical service, to offer corresponding inducements to doctors to enter the Navy.
MR. WHITLEY: What is the new rate of pay to be? This is a Very large increase to have passed through the Committee without a word of explanation.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked for further explanation as to the policy of the Admiralty in regard to hospital ships. He said it was an entirely new thing in the history of the Navy that each ship was not to look after her own wounded in action; and he very much doubted the feasibility of the scheme of having hospital ships to accompany the Fleets. There was ample accommodation on board each ship for her own wounded and sick, and he feared that if hospital ships were attached to squadrons they would prove a drag, and impair the efficiency of the Fleet. He saw no necessity for them. He presumed that the hospital ships would not be armed, and that we should call in aid the Geneva Convention and place them under the care of some neutral nation. This was a serious new departure, and he wanted the necessity for it to be shown.
Mr. FLYNNasked how it was that there was no provision in the Estimate for police in charge of the hospital at Haulbowline Dockyard. He noticed there were such charges on the general funds for naval hospitals in England.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas sorry he could not at the moment give the precise details asked for by the hon. Member for Halifax. In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he could only say that the policy of hospital ships had been deliberately adopted after a great deal of consideration by the Admiralty. The medical view and, he believed, the naval view also was that
1034
the conditions of a modern ironclad war-vessel were so unfavourable to the nursing Of the sick and wounded that it was most desirable to have hospital ships, especially in the case of war, where the wounded could be properly attended to. He was aware that the hon. Member did not agree with the general view as to the desirability of introducing the protection of the Geneva Convention, but, undoubtedly, in the Navy it was held that hospital ships ought to be provided in order to relieve fighting ships of the care of their sick and wounded.
MR. WHITLEYagain pressed for further information as to the increase in the pay of naval medical officers.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not give the actual difference in salaries between this year and last, but on page 8 of the Estimate the hon. Member would find information as to individual salaries.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked if he rightly understood the Secretary to the Admiralty to have said that the naval medical service was in a perfectly satisfactory condition—that the Navy obtained the services as doctors of men of the proper stamp and education. Why, then, should the salaries of medical officers be increased in the Navy merely because the Army was obliged to increase its inducements? He desired to know whether the Admiralty had been consulted before the War Office increased the salaries of medical officers in the Army, which would necessarily involve a corresponding increase in the Navy.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that hitherto the number of candidates for the medical service of the Navy had been sufficient; but after the emoluments in the Army had been increased a diminution in the number took place, and it was decided by the Admiralty, after consultation with the War Office, to offer the same emoluments in the Navy.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that what he wanted to know was whether before one Department forced

1035
the hands of another there was proper communication between the two Departments.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid circumstances were more pressing, no doubt, in the Army than in the Navy, and, in view of the war, it became absolutely necessary to increase the pay of Army medical officers. It was inevitable, of course, that the Navy would have to follow suit.
MR. FLYNN: What about the police at naval hospitals? Is the difference made because no ships are paid off at Haulbowline?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was the case that at Haslar and Portsmouth a certain number of members of the Metropolitan Police Force were employed, but they were part of the police organisation which looked after the dockyards. Haulbowline was on a very much smaller scale than the English dockyards, and as no ships were paid off there, there was no need for a police establishment in connection with the hospital.
Mr. WHITLEYsaid he did not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the point of his question. He would try and illustrate it. On page 49, the first item was the salary of the Inspector General, £2,600. Last year that item only amounted to £2,178. This was a considerable increase, which was absolutely unexplained in the Estimates. He noticed that they did not in these cases—as in the case of the Civil Service and Army Estimates—get the figures showing the starting salary, the yearly increment, and the maximum, so as to be able to ascertain if officers were receiving increases of salary at the rate which Parliament had agreed to. It was not satisfactory that these increases should not be given without consultation with Parliament, and without any reason being shown on the face of the Estimates. Were the increases merely the normal increases caused by the officers starting at a minimum salary and rising by annual increments, or were they due to any particular advances to the individuals concerned?
Mr. T. M. HEALYsaid the point raised by the hon. Member for North Cork with regard to the non-provision of police at Irish ports was an important one, and had not been met by the reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty. The reason given for there being no police provided at Irish ports was that no necessity existed for them, because ships were not paid off at those ports. But at another point in the Estimates there was an item for "Wages, etc., of Police Force employed in Hospitals abroad," amounting to £2,078, while in England the advantage amounted to £2,572. For the sister island, however, which was taxed for the purposes of the Navy, not one shilling was provided. The usual system of boycotting was followed. She was not given even the advantage which arose from ships being paid off in the country, whereas provision was made for police at Colonial ports in connection with the paying off of ships to the extent of over £2,000 a year, although those places did not contribute a single sixpence towards the upkeep of the Navy. The Secretary to the Admiralty representing, as he did, the shipbuilding constituency of Belfast, had constantly expressed his desire to do something to redress the inequalities under which Ireland suffered on the general Navy question, but the reason always given why nothing was done was that the dockyards and so on were not suitable. Here, however, was a matter which did not require a single plank or appliance; it was simply a matter of arrangement, as the men could be paid off at any port whatsoever. Loyalty and so forth was expected from the Irish people, but it seemed to be the object of t he Government that not a single shilling should go to that country in the shape of wages or anything else in return for the taxes they exacted. The Committee were entitled to some explanation with regard to this large sum for police at hospitals abroad. What hospitals were they? From where were the police drafted? Of what nationality were they? Upon what basis was the force organised? Under what provisions of the Navy Act was it raised? It was common knowledge that the Colonies benefited from the Army to the extent of 5s. a day—in which

1037
connection he suggested they should be called "Crown" Colonies, but he did not know before that they benefited to this large extent from the Navy. Finally, he thought the admission of the Secretary to the Admiralty that because of the war the Government had been compelled to raise the wages in the Navy, which was not at all engaged in the conflict, was one of the most serious outcomes of the struggle of which they were yet aware.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he had not yet received a satisfactory reply to his Question, and as a protest he moved to reduce the Vote "A" by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Whitley.)
MR. DILLONdrew attention to the fact that the chaplains at Haslar and Plymouth received salaries of £312 and £325 respectively, and, in addition, drew civil allowances of £100 a year each. He did not quarrel with the salaries paid, but he desired to know what the civil allowance was for, and why these chaplains should have nearly £500 a year each, while the Catholic chaplains at Portsmouth and Chatham received only about £200. When the question was raised on a former occasion, the hon. Gentleman made a sympathetic but not entirely satisfactory reply. He did not go into particulars, but he stated that any representations to the Admiralty as to the insufficiency of the salary would receive the consideration of the Admiralty. He (the hon. Member) therefore would give the Secretary to the Admiralty notice that in response to that invitation he proposed to send in a representation, demanding, as a matter of right, that Catholic chaplains at the home stations, who were very hard-worked men, should be put on a footing of equality, as regarded salary, with the Anglican chaplains on the establishment.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the explanation which had been given as to Item A covered other increases as well, as the £4,000 under Vote A was the smallest part of the increase. A full reply had not been given to the point raised by the Leader of
1038
the Opposition as to whether there had been sufficient consultation between the Army Department and the Navy Department before the increase referred to was agreed upon.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERcould not admit that the matter of these salaries had been sprung upon the Committee. There was only one way in which such matters could be brought under the notice of Members, viz., that of putting down the increases under the respective Votes to be discussed. That had been done in this particular case, and the hon. Member had very properly called attention to others. He had endeavoured to explain the origin of the increases, and he thought he made it perfectly clear. But the hon. Member now asked for further details, and particularly whether they were for progressive increases of salaries. There was an item of £393 on that ground; there was an increase to the Deputy Inspector General and surgeons at Hong Kong, which accounted for the small sum of £154; there was a forage allowance to the medical officer at Cape Town, who had to visit the hospital on land at some distance from the ship; but the bulk of the addition was owing to the increase of the medical officers which had been considered necessary in view of the circumstances to which he had already referred. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, the representations the hon. Member proposed to make would be carefully considered. It was not, however, reasonable to suggest that the emoluments of the chaplains should be on the same footing, as over 80 per cent. of the men were ministered to by the chaplains on the establishment.
MR. DILLONpointed out that there were thirty Established chaplains, but only three or four Catholic chaplains.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there were a great many Roman Catholic chaplains besides those in the establishment. The matter had been sympathetically considered, and he believed the salaries they received were ample for the services rendered. The hon. Member had undertaken to show that that was not case, so he would await the receipt of the communication he had promised to make.
MR.EDMUND ROBERTSON ROBERTSONcalled attention to the fact that there was an increase of more than £3,000 on the salaries in this Vote. This vote related to those establishments and had nothing to do with the Navy, therefore this increase was in respect of surgeons. The hon. Member had explained that this increase, except to a small degree, was not automatic, and it meant a general raising of the salaries paid to surgeons. That increase also applied, he understood, to surgeons on board ship. This was a general raising of medical officers' salaries, which extended not only to shore establishments but to the whole of the naval medical officers. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty could tell them the total figures in regard to these increases in Votes attributable to this raising of the general level of medical salaries of all sorts.
MR. FLYNNcomplained that some of the Roman Catholic chaplains were only paid £200 for all services.
MR. DILLONsaid he had understated his case, because he found that there were 111 Established Church chaplains against some four or five Roman Catholic chaplains.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member for Dundee has asked me for exact figures and I can give them. The proposed addition is from 11s. 6d. to 14s. per day, and after four years service 13s. 6d. to 17s. I have not got the whole list, but I shall be pleased to show it to the hon. Member. The rise of staff surgeons on promotion will be from 21s. to 24s., and after four years from 24s. to 27s.
MR. WHITLEY: About 20 per cent.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not so much as that. Some of the ranks are already paid on a scale which is smaller or equal to the Army rate. I shall be pleased to show all these figures to the hon. Member.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for the total financial effect of the increase.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: About £3,000.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he proposed to press this matter to a division, not because he objected to these medical men having higher rates of pay, but because he felt strongly that it was wrong that this Committee ought to be asked to vote public money without any notice, not knowing how the increase was caused, and without showing on the face of the Vote, as was done in the case of most other Departments, what the rate of pay was.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: But that is done.
MR. WHITLEYsaid there was nothing to show what increase had taken place on this Vote as compared with last year. He thought the Secretary to the Admiralty ought to undertake to give this information in all future alterations of this kind. There ought to be a plain statement upon the face of the Vote, showing that these increases had been decided upon, and then the Committee could take them into consideration when the Vote was under discussion.
MR. DILLONsaid he agreed with his hon. friend that there was not sufficient information on the face of the Estimates. It always seemed to him to be most cruel to have an immense body of men at sea at the mercy of an entirely incompetent medical man. From his own knowledge, he knew that a great many of the medical men who went into the Navy were the most imperfectly trained in the profession. Personally, he would like to see the medical men in the Navy better paid than in the Army, because the unfortunate surgeon on board a man-of-war had also to be a physician, able to treat all cases of sickness without opportunities of consulting other medical men. Therefore his duties were much more responsible than those in the same profession in the Army
MR. WHITLEY:I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. WHITLEYcalled attention to a very extraordinary increase in the items for gas and electric lighting in Class F. In some establishments they had introduced the electric light, and a large amount of money had been spent upon it. There was an increase of £1,340 in this respect, and yet there had only been a saving of £130 on the gas bill. He trusted that that was not the form of economy which was going on in all the Departments. The total expenditure for lighting, gas and electricity, had very seriously increased.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he quite agreed with what had been said in regard to the increase on this Vote.
MR. WHITLEYasked if this item included in regard to electric lighting the cost of installation.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I understand that that is the case. It includes the cost of electric lighting at the Haslar Hospital.
MR. LOUGHsaid the whole increase of this Vote amounted to about 60 per cent. The large increase in item H had not been explained at all.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already explained that, in accordance with the general policy of the Government, provision is being made for additional hospital ships in time of war. The first increase is in respect of the up-keep of the men, which is an entirely new addition on this Vote. The other expenditure under sub-head H is in regard to clothing and medical stores devoted to the hospital ships.
Question put and agreed to.
(5.0.) Motion made, and Question proposed "That a sum, not exceeding £17,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
MR. KEARLEYmoved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to call the attention of the Committee to the disability under
1042
which the marine officers suffered by not being entitled to sit on courts-martial afloat, and consequently not being able to try marines on board ship. He pointed out that marine officers when ashore were not only qualified to try members of their own corps, but to try members of the Army. When embarked, the positions on courts-martial were monopolised by naval officers of the executive branch. That seemed to be a great injustice, and was strongly resented by the marine officers themselves.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not think we can legitimately discuss this question on the Vote now before the Committee. It is a disability the marine officers afloat are under by statute. I do not at this moment see how a disability of marine officers afloat comes under this Vote.
MR. KEARLEY: I am surprised that my hon. friend takes that view. I tried to raise the question last year on the Army Annual Bill, and I was ruled out by order of the Chairman of Committee. There is provision in the Vote for courts-martial.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not on shore.
MR. KEARLEY: My grievance is that these men afloat are not permitted to sit on courts-martial. If I cannot call attention to the question on this occasion, what other occasion can I take? I am glad to see that the Chairman does not rule me out of order. I do not think he would be justified in doing it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I cannot find that there is anything in the Vote for courts martial afloat. Therefore I am obliged to rule the hon. Member out of order.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Item A is not limited to courts-martial ashore. It includes the expenses of naval witnesses. It may be as a matter of fact limited to proceedings on shore.
MR. KEARLEY: I wish to point out that I have raised the question on this Vote before, and it, has not been ruled out of order. I think Item A clearly demonstrates that I am in order on this

1043
occasion. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn his objection.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I understand that by Act of Parliament marine officers cannot sit on courts-martial afloat.
MR.GIBSON BOWLES: The objection is that there is a statutory prohibition by which marine officers are prevented from sitting on courts-martial afloat. If that is so, the hon. Member ought to give us the reference to the statute.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETTYMAN,): Marines cannot take part in courts-martial afloat.
MR.KEARLEYasked the reason for this disqualification. Was it because their educational equipment was not adequate? If that were urged, he would point out that the marines alone of all naval officers were instructed and examined in martial law, and therefore it could not be on that score. The reason was pretty well known. It was because there was jealousy against this particular corps. The officers felt it was a slur that they should be deprived of this privilege. Perhaps the most clenching thing he could adduce in support of his claim was the definite pledge on the subject which was given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1891. Sir John Pope Hennessy, who brought forward the question, said—
"I had an Amendment on the Paper with the object of effecting such a change in the law as will enable marine officers to sit on courts-marital to try marines for offences committed when afloat. There is a great deal of interest felt in this Government will be able to give me an assurance that the matter I refer to will not be lost sight of."
The first Lord of the Admirately (Lord George Hamilton) replied—
"A good many naval officers object to the proposed change, but I personally cannot see why the change not be made, and I will undertake to consider the matter and propose an Amendment to the Naval Discipline Act this session or next with the object of carrying it out."
Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who was then a Member of the House, said—
"I trust the hon. Member for Kilkenny will remain satisfied with the assurance he has received from the noble Lord."
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must rule the hon. Member out of order if he proposes a change of legislation. That has always been considered to be out of order in Committee of Supply. I understood that was what the hon. Member was doing.
MR. KEARLEY: I do not want to argue the matter further.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding£17,600, be granted for the said service."—(Mr.Kearley)
MR. O'MARApointed out that there were increases under the heads "Courts-Martial," "Naval prisons at home," "Naval prisons abroad," and "Conveyance of prisoners, "amounting in all to £1,500. He thought some explanation ought to be vouchsafed to the Committee for the large and striking increases. He found that the estimated cost for the coming year for Lewes prison was £4,688. The number of prisoners last year was 120, so that the rate per prisoner was £40 a year. He did not think the Committee could object to that as too high a sum. When he looked at the estimate for Bodmin prison, he found that the charge per prisoner worked out at £104 a year. There was many a man outside of prison walls to whom £104 would be a little fortune. He could not understand why a prisoner at Bodmin should cost so large an amount of money, unless it was that they entertained him with champagne and pati de fois gras. There was a still more remarkable case; that of Portsmouth. The total cost of maintaining that prison was £9,048, and during the year the number of prisoners was 26, which worked out that each prisoner cost £350 a year. He thought that extraordinary figure demanded some explanation.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. £7,075 of that £9,000 was simply carried forward from other accounts.
(5.16) Question Put.
The Committee divided; Ayes,133; Noes,221. (Division List No.70.)

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Grant, Corrie

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Malley, William

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Hammond, John

O'Mara, James

Ambrose, Robert

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shee, James John

Atherley-Jones L.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Perks, Robert William

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Price, Robert John

Blake, Edward

Holland, William Henry

Priestley, Arthur

Boland, John

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Rea, Russell

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Burns, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Caldwell, James

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cameron, Robert

Kennedy, James Patrick

Roche, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kinlock, Sir John George Smvth

Runciman, Walter

Carew, James Lawrence

Kitson, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Labouchere, Henry

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cawley, Frederick

Lambert, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cogan, Denis J.

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tennant, Harold John

Craig, Robert Hunter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Crean, Eugene

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Cullinan, J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Tomkinson, James

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Kean, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert

Delany, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dillon, John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Donelan, Captain A.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Dunn, Sir William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Elibank, Master of

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Young, Samuel

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Mr. Kearley and Mr. Whitley.

Gilhooly, James

O'Dowd, John

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bousfield, William Robert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Brassey, Albert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Arnold-Forster Hugh O.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cranborne, Viscount

Arrol, Sir William

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Austin, Sir John

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A.(Glasgow

Cubitt, Hon. Honry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Davenport, William Bromley-

Baird, John George Alexander

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Denny, Colonel

Balcarres, Lord

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Balfour Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Banes, Major George Edward

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bartley, George C. T.

Chapman, Edward

Duke, Henry Edward

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

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

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Bigwood, James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

1046

1047

Finch, George H.

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Renwick, George

Fisher, William Hayes

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Forster, Henry William

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, SW

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Round, James

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Rt Hon Walter(Bristol,S)

Royds, Clement Molyueux

Gardner, Ernest

Lowther, C. (Camb., Eskdale)

Russell, T. W.

Garfit, William

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Lloyd, Archie Kirkham

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowesto ft

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Macartney, Rt Hn. W G. Ellison

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Gordon J. (Londonderry, S.)

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Seton Karr, Henry

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Majendie, James A. H.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside

Groves, James Grimble

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Hain, Edward

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n

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

Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Montagu. Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hardy, Laurence(K'nt, Ashford

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hare, Thomas Leigh

More, Robert Jasper(Shropshire

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morgan, Hn. Fred, (Monm'thsh.

Thornburn, Sir Walter

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morrell, George Herbert

Thornton, Percy M.

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Morrison, James Archibald

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Heaton, John Henniker

Morton, Arthur H A.(Deptford)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Helder, Augustus

Muntz, Philip A.

Tuke, Sir Charles Batty

Higginbottom, S.W.

Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

Valentia, Viscount

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hogg, Lindsay

Myers, William Henry

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

Hope J.F.(Sheffield, Brights'de

Nicholson, William Graham

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Houston, Robert Paterson

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Howard, J. (Mid. Tottenham)

Parker, Gilbert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Pease, Herbt. Pike(Darlington)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Penn, John

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Wylie, Alexander

Law, Andrew Bonar

Randles, John S.

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Rasca, Major Frederic Carne

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lawson, John Grant

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw. H.

Reid. James (Greenock)

Original question again proposed.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that there was another matter which he should like to have explained before the Vote was passed. It related to naval prisons. There was an increase of neatly £1,000, in addition to a large increase last year. The figures for the last three years were as follows:—1900–1, £13,300; 1901–2, £16,200; and 1902–3, £17,700. The increase was not accounted for by increased accommodation, as it appeared that at Lewes prison, with accommodation for 142 prisoners, the average daily number was 120; at Bodmin prison, with accommodation for 100, 68;
1048
and at Portsmouth prison, with accommodation for 60, 26. There appeared to have been a Treasury protest, with respect to some of the expenditure. In 1900 there were only two naval prisons, and at that time, no doubt, there was need for further accommodation, and in 1900–1 £2,000 was included in the Estimates for enlarging the prison at Bodmin in order to accommodate thirty more prisoners. He should have thought, that that was all that was required; but there was in that year a further sum of £1,500 for adapting Portsmouth Barracks to the purposes of a naval prison. On July

1049
21st, 1900, a few months after the Estimates were presented to Parliament, the Admiralty asked the Treasury to sanction an annual charge of £1,760 for the maintenance of Portsmouth prison. According to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it appeared that the Treasury replied that they felt it difficult to sanction the creation of an establishment costing £1,760 a year for a purpose for which Parliament had made no provision. He thought that was a case where the accommodation provided had over-run the real needs, and where a little practical economy might be introduced. The personnel of the Navy was the best of any service in the country. He should have thought that the amount of crime in the Navy requiring imprisonment was very small indeed, and it was a great disappointment to him to find such a constant increase in the Estimates under that head. They were gradually abolishing civil prisons, and were turning the space they occupied to more useful purposes. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the increase.
MR. ARNOLD - FORSTERsaid he shared the hon. Gentleman's admiration for the personnel of the Navy, but this increase was caused, to a very considerable extent, by the very wise policy of providing separate prison accommodation for naval prisoners. He could remember the time when naval prisoners were sent to ordinary gaols, which was exceedingly bad for the service. He thought it very satisfactory that accommodation was now provided solely for naval prisoners, and the fact that such accommodation had been provided did not indicate any increase in the ratio of crime in the Navy. There was, no doubt, a certain increase in the number of prisoners, but that arose from the fact that the personnel of the Navy had very largely increased. He did not quite understand the objection of the hon. Member where the average number of inmates was less than the total capacity of the prisons. For instance, the presence of a large fleet at Portsmouth might result in a large number of prisoners being confined in Portsmouth prison, which was a short service prison, and it would be most unfortunate, in an emergency of that kind, if the prison were over-crowded, if and naval prisoners
1050
had to be transferred to ordinary gaols. The increase under Sub-head B amounted to only £558, which was made up of small sums, such as provision for a warder and assistant warder in Lewes gaol, progressive increase of wages, subsistence, for additional prisoners, and so on. As to there being any difference between the Treasury and the Admiralty with regard to the matter, that was not the case. All those proposals had been sanctioned by the Treasury.
MR. RUNCIMANasked if the hon. Gentleman could explain why the chaplain at Lewes prison was paid £500 a year, whereas no chaplains were provided in the other two prisons. The chaplain at Lewes gaol looked after some 144 souls, which was a very small parish for such a large salary. Why should he have such a large salary when no chaplains were provided at either Portsmouth or Bodmin prisons?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the circumstances in Lewes and Portsmouth were quite different. Lewes prison was a long service gaol, and men were confined in it for years, some times for life; but at Portsmouth prison the inmates were only resident a few days or weeks, and were then restored to the ministrations of the chaplains of the Fleet.
MR. J. P. FARRELLasked whether in the long sentence prisons the Government made any arrangements for Catholic prisoners having the ministrations of a Catholic chaplain. No information was given as to the religious denominations of the prisoners, and he assumed that they included Catholic prisoners. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give information on that point, which was very important as far as Catholics were concerned.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was very startling that the chaplain at Lewes prison should get five times as much as the doctor and nearly twice as much as the Governor. What earthly reason could there be for giving the Governor, who was responsible for the conduct of everybody in the gaol, including the chaplain, £327 a year, and the chaplain £500? That required some explanation, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at any rate give the Committee an

1051
assurance that he would look into the question of the chaplain's salary with a view to reducing it.
MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if the hon. Gentleman would reply to his question. If not, he would have to move a reduction of the Vote.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there were one or two Roman Catholic prisoners in Lewes, and he imagined that the same arrangements were made for them as were made for every other prisoner in the kingdom to receive the ministrations of their religion. There could not be a clergyman of every denomination at each prison.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if the Governor did not receive an additional sum as retired pay.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he believed that was so.
MR. WHITLEYasked why the chaplain received five times as much as the doctor.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the doctor was a local medical practitioner, and his work at the prison was only a small portion of his practice. The whole work of the chaplain was within the walls of the gaol.
MR. RUNCIMANasked why it was not possible to get a clergyman from outside to take in the prison as part of his parish. Many clergymen would be glad to undertake the work at a nominal salary.
MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if the £500 a year was paid to only one chaplain.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.
MR. RUNCIMANasked if the hon. Gentleman would promise to look into the matter.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir; it is a case to be looked into.
(5.46.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 282; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 71.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Butcher, John George

Denny, Colonel

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Caldwell, James

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Cameron, Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Disracli, Coningsby Ralph

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Arrol, Sir William

Cawley, Frederick

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Austin, Sir John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm.)

Dunn, Sir William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Baird, John George Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

Edwards, Frank

Balcarres, Lord

Chapman, Edward

Elibank, Master of

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

Carrington, Spencer

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Banes, Major George Edward

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fenwick, Charles

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Finch, George H.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Compton, Lord Atwyne

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bignold, Arthur

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Fisher, William Hayes

Bigwood, James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bousfield, William Robert

Craig, Robert Hunter

Forster, Henry William

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

Cranborne, Viscount

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Cripps, Charles, Alfred

Fuller, J. M. F.

Brassey, Albert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Galloway, William Johnson

Brigg, John

Crossley, Sir Savile

Gardner, Ernest

Brocrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Garfit, William

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gibbs, Hn A G H (City of Lond.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dalziel, James Henry

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Davenport, William Bromley-

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Kenna, Reginald

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Grant, Corrie

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Majendie, James A. H.

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

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Seton-Karr, Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hain, Edward

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire

Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Soares, Ernest J.

Hare, Thomas, Leigh

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrison, James Archibald

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Helder, Augustus

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Higginbottom, S. W.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Tennant, Harold John

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Muntz, Philip A.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hogg, Lindsay

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Holland, William Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Myers, William Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Nicholson, William Graham

Tomkinson, James

Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Parker, Gilbert

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

Valentia, Viscount

Jacoby, James Alfred

Penn, John

Wallace, Robert

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Perks, Robert William

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds,S.)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pierpoint, Robert

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

Platt-Haggins, Frederick

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Plummer, Walter R.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Loyd

Kitson, Sir James

Price, Robert John

White, George (Norfolk)

Lambert, George

Priestley, Arthur

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Randles John S.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lawson, John Grant

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Rea, Russell

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Renwick, George

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

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

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

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wylie, Alexander

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Round, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Macartney, Rt Hn W G Ellison

Runciman, Walter

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Macdona, John Cumming

Russell, T. W.

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

Crean, Eugene

Healy, Timothy Michael

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cullinan, J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Ambrose, Robert

Delany, William

Jordan, Jeremiah

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dillon, John

Joyce, Michael

Blake, Edward

Doogan, P. C.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Lundon, W.

Burns, John

Ffrench, Peter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Flynn, James Christopher

MacVeagh Jeremiah

Carew, James Lawrence

Gilhooly, James

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Cogan, Denis J.

Hammond, John

M'Kean, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Murphy, John

O'Dowd, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Nannetti, Joseph P.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

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

O'kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

O'Malley, William

Young, Samuel

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

O'Mara, James

O'Brien Kendal(Tipperary Mid

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

O'Shee, James John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Redmond, John F.(Waterford)

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

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

Roche, John

6. £101,700, Educational Services.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he desired to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could tell the Committee what progress was being made with the expansion of the school of naval strategy. When the matter was raised two years ago, the Admiralty did not appear to view the matter with much favour. He however, understood that the hon. Gentleman took credit to himself now for having made a start in this work, which he believed was a good one, and he would like to know what was being done.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he believed that the whole matter of naval education was in the hands of a council, the composition of which was altogether faulty. It was composed chiefly of scientific gentlemen who were too much accustomed to fixed science. His view was that naval education should be placed in the hands of naval officers, and that these scientists should only be called in when required. Another thing was that there had undoubtedly been a great deal too much scientific cramming in the system of education, and too little practical instruction in matters required by naval officers in their profession. There was no matter more important to naval officers than that they should have, at any rate, an elementary knowledge of the law of nations. With any complication that arose, the naval officer had to deal himself; there was no manual to help him in the difficult task he had to perform; he could get no advice or counsel from anybody; he had to rely on himself. But would it be believed that practically no instruction was given in the law of nations? There had been, indeed, a manual, but a most faulty one, and it was in consequence of the faults in that book that some untoward incidents had occurred in South Africa, and had
1056
resulted in our having to pay £28,000 compensation to the Germans, when we ought to have had £100.000 from them. He believed the Secretary to the Admiralty took a special interest in these educational matters, and he hoped the hon. Member would be able to tell the Committee that he was about to tackle some of these subjects, as they should have been tackled long ago. For ten years he had pressed the necessity of a special manual on the law of nations for the use of our Navy. Such a manual was written for the French Navy years ago, and a most admirable book it was, but no work of that sort had been written for the English Navy. Of all the Navies in the world, the English Navy was the one which most required a comprehensive manual on the subject, giving the matters which the sailor required, and leaving out those he did not require. Another important point that should be attended to was the teaching of modern languages. It was practically impossible for any naval officer to learn any language other than his own, except perhaps Latin. High marks were given for Latin, but French and other languages were almost neglected. As soon as a naval officer left the "Britannia," his instruction in modern languages came to an end. It was true provision was made for enabling naval officers to live abroad for a time—three months, he believed—in order to become interpreters, but, as a matter of fact no naval lieutenant was ever able to avail himself of that provision, because the Admiralty would not grant him the necessary leave. The result was that the ignorance of English naval officers of ordinary foreign languages, such as French. Italian, and Spanish, was not only notorious, but shameful. He would not go into the question of the age for entering the "Britannia," but perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty could say whether it was in contemplation to revert to the lower age for cadets. At any rate,

1057
he earnestly hoped it was the intention of the Admiralty to improve the system of instruction at Greenwich in the direction he had indicated.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the subject which had now been brought forward was really one of the most important of all the matters on the subsidiary Votes. He could not agree, however, that the arrangement of the curriculum of naval education could, with great advantage, be left entirely to naval officers. They ought, undoubtedly, to have a very large say in the matter, but his own impression was that education, whether for naval or any other purposes, was, to a large extent, a question for skilled consideration. There were certain universal rules, known to specialists, with regard to the imparting of information, the method of imparting it, and the time necessary for acquiring it, which applied not only to naval education, but other branches of instruction. He believed the broadestminded educational specialist and a naval officer were the proper mixture for such a duty. But there was a great deal of weight in the criticisms directed against the scheme of naval education. The difficulties in the way of formulating a perfect scheme or anything approaching thereto, were, he would not say insuper able, but very great indeed. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had touched on one of them, viz., the universal demand made on the time of naval officers for practical subjects, and which, consequently, was deducted from the time available for general study. He agreed—he put it no higher than a personal opinion—that it was most desirable to aim at the introduction into the Navy of more general education. Undoubtedly the present class of officer was an exceedingly good product, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that in the profession of the Navy, as in every other, the standard of accomplishments was rising, and unless a naval officer was put in a position, in which he would advance pari passu with educated men of other professions, he would suffer in that connection. He quite agreed it would be a great advantage if some of those non-technical subjects, which, however, were very closely connected with naval matters, could be taught.
1058
As to the school of strategy at Greenwich, about which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean inquired, there had, undoubtedly, been progress. Provision had been made for lectures by persons not connected with the personnel of the college, and those lectures had been greatly appreciated. Under the present director of the course, a great deal had been taught which was not taught before. If, however, he were to say that he was satisfied that all had been done, or was likely to be done, under present arrangements, which ought to be done for the training of the British naval officer, he would be going very far in excess of his belief.
The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred once more to the question of languages. It was true that the easiest time for the study of languages was youth, and he looked forward to the day when greater encouragement would be given to "Britannia" cadets to study modern languages than was now given. Something had been attempted with regard to the continuance of the study of French after leaving the "Britannia," and an instructor was now being appointed for the Channel Fleet, who would be able to continue the teaching of French—not adequately, but to some extent.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: One only!
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes. But he still maintained that no adequate teaching of languages would be arrived at until they were able to allow, persuade, or compel officers to live abroad for some period of their term of service, in order to acquire colloquially the language of the country, and, what was as important, some knowledge of the feeling and attitude of mind of the people of the country. The first Lord of the Admiralty had invited discussion of these matters, and some response had already been made to that invitation. The objection might be raised that this was a matter which the Admiralty must deal with on its own responsibility, but, at the same time, the subject was so complicated and concerned with so many things not purely naval, that he thought it was right to invite the co-operation and seek the views of those who were not specially connected with the naval service.

1059
He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the necessity of something more being taught of the law of nations than was the case at present. He had been greatly struck by a small book which had been recently compiled for the, United States Navy, and put into the hands of all their naval officers as a guide to them in the many difficult situations in which a naval officer might find himself. He believed that a most valuable book might be written on British diplomacy as conducted by British naval officers, and that it would form a very creditable chapter in the history of our diplomacy. The country owed them a great deal for what they had already done, and it owed them a little more in the direction of making their task easier for them than it had hitherto been. He would certainly like to see some volume, perhaps a little more advanced and fuller than that prepared for the United States Navy, produced for our own. If there could be introduced at Greenwich, to a larger extent, lectures on international obligations, he was sure they would do good service. There was no Navy the officers of which found themselves more often face to face with complicated diplomatic situations than our own, and those officers should be given all the assistance possible. He agreed that the suggestion made by his hon. friend was one which ought not to be allowed to pass by. He hoped, however, that the Committee would be patient with the Admiralty as long as they had reason to believe that the Government were sincerely interested in this question. He welcomed any stimulus in this matter in the interests of the Navy, and naval officers who were as conscious as any one could be of the necessity of having the same opportunities of education which were open to the officers of other nations, and which were open to those of their own rank and position in civil life in this country. They were as conscious of this as any hon. Member of this House could be. He did not know that he needed to say anything more upon this point. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn had said, that these matters were engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and he hoped that either himself or his successor might be able to do more in this direction in the future than had been done hitherto.
MR. ASQUITH: I trust that the House will recognise the tone and the substance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We know already, from the services which he has rendered as a private Member by way of criticism, that no one is more alive to this question than the Secretary to the Admiralty. It is always very easy to talk generally, but very difficult to combine in the true proportion, in a service like the Navy, general education with technical instruction. But there are one or two points which have been brought out in the course of this discussion which, as the hon. Member has truly said, were, in a sense, invited by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I think we ought to put it upon record. My first point is as regards the teaching of foreign languages. I cannot help saying, after having looked as carefully as I could into this matter, that I think the provision made both in the "Britannia" and the Naval College in this important respect is totally inadequate. In the "Britannia" there are about 300 Naval cadets, and I notice in the Estimates, here under the heading of "Instructors in Foreign. Languages," that there are only two French masters provided for the whole of these 300 boys, while German seems to be ignored altogether. That, surely, is a most insufficient provision in what ought to be regarded as one of the essential rudiments of their education. If you turn again to the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, although the provision there is on a somewhat more liberal scale, yet there are only five instructors in all foreign languages, including French, German, Spanish, and Italian, out of a staff which exceeds fifty in number. It therefore appears to me that a practical beginning might be made in the direction which the hon. Gentleman has indicated in both these institutions, and the existing staff might be reinforced, and provision made for the teaching of some other language besides French. I was glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman told us as to the intentions of the Department in providing opportunities for naval officers to carry on abroad their studies in these languages, in order to make themselves more perfect than they have at present the opportunity of doing. The other point to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn called attention, is of equal, if not greater, importance. I mean the question of providing some kind of instruction, some ready and

1061
available text-book, on international law. I believe it to be true that the great majority of our naval officers, through no fault of their own, have not more than the most elementary acquaintance with the principles and practice of international law. It surely might be possible to do what, as has been mentioned, has been done in the case of the American Navy. We have only to go into the Temple any day to find a number of men, unemployed, with plenty of time, plenty of ability, who would, for a modest consideration, give their services to the State. I am perfectly sure that we could find men in abundance, and fitted in every way by ability, knowledge, and a power of exposition, to provide such a manual as we all agree to be necessary. I express the hope that the Admiralty will make a solid advance in these matters before this time next year.
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he should like to say a word or two upon this question of foreign languages. He found that, as a rule, every officer in the Swedish Navy had to be acquainted with three languages. That was not the case in the British Navy, and it struck him that while British naval officers were so fully employed as they were at present they could hardly expect them to learn foreign languages. One important step towards accomplishing this object would be that the standard for a knowledge of languages possessed by cadets should be raised on their entering the "Britannia," because they ought to be well grounded in foreign languages before they joined, and then it would he easier to carry on their instruction. There were two classes of persons who could largely add to efficiency in this work, and they were the parents of the boys and the instructors in the schools. He was very much surprised at the small attention that was given to foreign languages in the private schools, and if parents would require more definite instruction in languages, he thought more instructors would be provided. He thought this was so important that he insisted upon his sons having extra lessons in French and German, and two of his sons had risen rapidly in their profession, largely owing to the good knowledge which they obtained at school of the former language. If a higher standard with regard to foreign
1062
languages was insisted upon when entering the Navy, it would be more easily kept up afterwards.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was disposed to think that a great deal had been done in reference to the teaching of modern languages to the cadets on board the "Britannia," and in encouraging them to learn foreign languages before their entrance on board that ship. He had had sufficient experience of the acquisition of modern languages to know that it was a most difficult thing, after acquiring a language, to keep up that language. What a boy learned prior to entering the "Britannia," and what he learned on that ship, were only the ground-work of what he required to know as a naval officer. They could only put a certain amount into a boy's head, and it was almost useless to expect the high standard which was necessary in mathematics and other subjects from those boys, while demanding at the same time a high standard in modern languages. He suggested that the Admiralty should do what was done in the armies of nearly all Continental countries, namely, that officers should be given an incentive in the Navy to acquire that further knowledge of languages which was necessary tinder the only possible way which was pointed out by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was necessary that they should know, not only the language, but also something about the country and the nation which employed that language. The only incentive given as prizes to naval officers for modern languages amounted only to about £125. The proper course to take was to give an extra inducement to those officers who had a special aptitude for languages to go to those countries where those particular languages were spoken, and, provided that they afterwards attained a certain proficiency, they should be awarded a certain premium. The system adopted by the Indian Army for the acquisition of the Russian language should be followed in the Navy. This would operate in two directions. The naval officer who went to Russia would, at the same time that he was acquiring that language, also be able to acquire much information with reference to the naval capacity of that particular nation, and its powers in

1063
regard to ship building. He could also be preparing himself for the position of attaché at that particular Court. The expense of this arrangement would be very small, and the nation would benefit very greatly if they happened to be brought into conflict with any particular nation; they would then have at their disposal a certain number of naval officers who would be a valuable acquisition in time of war. He had been told that the majority of competent officers were already fully employed in their profession, but he would point out that there were always a certain number of officers upon half-pay, and instead of wasting their time they should be given some inducement to acquire these languages if they had any wish to do so. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give serious consideration to this question, with a view to improving the standard of education among naval officers in this respect.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid this Estimate was really one of the most important of all they were voting tonight. It was very easy for Gentlemen to get up and say that this, that, and the other piece of knowledge was required, and that the boys should be taught these subjects. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had said this was an elaborate and complicated profession, and that, therefore, the full control of the education should be put into the hands of the naval officers. It had also been suggested that modern languages were essential. What they wanted in taking boys into the "Britannia" was that we should take good sample boys in the general stream. He would not argue the question whether modern languages got a sufficient position or whether Latin got too much. For himself, he believed in Latin, and he did not think it received too much attention. They should not make the boys cram and specialise too early. He urged that the general control of naval education should be in the hands of men who had devoted more study to the principles of education than naval officers generally had. He thought that we had attempted to put too much miscellaneous knowledge into the heads of young officers, and that we must
1064
simplify our practice in that respect. He agreed that it was important to give young lieutenants opportunities of studying languages abroad. The only effective way in which modern languages could be learned was by residing in the country where they were spoken.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he believed no examinations were held for cadets except in England, and he suggested that the Colonies should be enabled to take their share in the naval service more than at the present time. With that object, examinations should be held in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape. As things stood, boys in the Colonies were practically excluded from entering the Navy—except, at any rate, the sons of very rich men indeed, who could afford to send them to be educated in England. When he raised this question before, an official answer was given that the difficulties were practically insuperable. They were not insuperable. It was merely a matter of expense. It was said there were no applications from the Colonies that examinations should be held out there. He did not think that was a sufficient answer. Obviously only a small part of the community in the Colonies would wish to send their sons into the Navy, and there was not likely to be any large public demand for examinations, but it seemed to him that if there were only one or two men who would send their sons into the Navy what he proposed would be worth doing, because it would be the beginning of a big Imperial movement of the practical kind which was wanted. He thought we ought not to abandon the idea of holding Colonial examinations without very strong reasons for doing so.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that a naval officer up to the age of twenty or twenty-one was totally absorbed in learning his duties on board ship. Before getting in, he had to pass a certain standard as a cadet; but having passed that, there was neither time nor opportunity for attempting to teach him more than was now taught. He agreed that the nature of the instruction might be very

1065
much improved, but at the age of twenty-one the opportunity had really gone for acquiring foreign languages at the receptive period of his existence. We were piling up on the executive officers all sorts of knowledge in addition to practical seamanship, and he did not see how the process could be carried further. Under the present conditions of naval organization it was practically impossible for lieutenants to learn modern languages abroad. We had to approach this whole question of education from a very much wider point of view. In this House and in the country it was supposed that the Navy simply consisted of admirals, captains, commanders, and lieutenants. Not so, they formed the smaller portion of the whole naval service. There was that great and growing branch, the engineers; there was what was called the Civil branch, which included a very large number of officers, and there was also the Marine branch. If interpreters were wanted, we ought to look for them to the officers of the Civil branch, and to the officers of the Marine forces. When he looked at the Estimate now before the Committee, he found that we were spending more money on mathematical professors than any other professors, and it was the universal opinion in the service that the education of young naval officers was far too much in the direction of mathematics. There had been a long time a most able gentleman at the head of the education staff, but it was quite evident that he was deadly opposed to the teaching of naval history, and therefore our young officers were brought up without any knowledge of the history of their own service. So far as the education course went, he was at one with some hon. Members who had spoken in saying that the present system wanted amending. We had built a naval college, but, ignoring the consequences of modern conditions, we kept it exclusively for the instruction of one branch of the naval service. We must open our minds a little more to the changes which had taken place in the composition and structure of the personnel of the Fleet. In his view, the only sound way of proceeding was to enter all youths intended to be officers of His Majesty's Fleet at the Naval College at Dartmouth, that they should all have the same instruction,
1066
theoretical and practical, up to the age of eighteen or twenty, and that then they those who, under observation, had shown the best aptitude, should be put into the branches of the service for which they were most adapted, where they could complete their education. To keep the service in grooves a hundred years old was extravagant, pernicious, and dangerous to the future efficiency of the Fleet. He saw that there was no increase in the Vote for lectures; it stood at £400. That meant the utmost limit of the Admiralty idea of the necessity for the higher education of the senior naval officers. Although we were the greatest—and must continue to be, if we were to live at all—maritime nation in the world, we were absolutely behind all the other nations in the means and the machinery by which we gave our senior naval officers opportunities for learning their business. He regretted extremely that there was no advance on that £400. It was the only higher education that the senior officers got, although it was an innovation of only the last few years. He understood that there was a great thirst amongst naval officers for such higher education, but how could the Admiralty get the best brains in the country to impart it when they only offered £5, or at most £10, for each lecture? There was another point. As his hon. Friend well knew, these branches of higher education were numerous; but there was one of which naval officers were entirely ignorant, and that was the question of the natural influence of the distribution of commerce on naval policy. There were no means, either in the Intelligence Department, or at Dartmouth or Greenwich Colleges, for enabling senior officers of His Majesty's Fleet to obtain, in the slightest degree, any knowledge of the movements of commerce on the naval stations at which they might be expected some day to hold command. He knew that a very able gentleman belonging to the Mercantile Marine, and also the Secretary at Lloyds, had been asked to give lectures on the subject, and that these lectures had been a revelation to the senior naval officers who had attended them as to what they would have to do in the event of war. But he likewise knew that the Naval Intelligence Department had no

1067
means or compiling accurate information from day to day of the movements of commerce. That was a branch of study which naval officers should have an opportunity of pursuing, but they hardly got it. The hon. Member for the Elland Division was, he thought, under a little misapprehension as to Colonial nominations to the Navy. Certain nominations were placed by the Admiralty at the disposal of the Colonial Office every year, which the Colonial Office placed at the disposal of the Colonial Governments. The young gentlemen so nominated were allowed to enter a lower standard of examination, and had, therefore, greater facilities for entering the Navy, as regarded tests, than the youth of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: How many?] Very few, only four; but he understood that there was no great demand even for these. He sympathised with the hon. Member in his opinion that the problem before the Empire was the discharge of naval obligations by all parts of the Empire, and to have a common Navy for a common Empire. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty would give some clear indication as to whether the Admiralty were really in earnest in the matter of naval education—first of all, in regard to the Service as a whole, and secondly, in regard to the higher education of the senior officers in the Navy. The root of all this lay in another branch of the Service. The cost of the higher education of a Marine Artillery officer was higher, and the standard of scientific knowledge required was greater, than that of an executive officer up to twenty-one years. And yet when the country spent all this money on him and turned him out a practical Artillery officer, fit to serve as such on land or sea, he was sent on board ship to do nothing at all. The Admiralty should also see the necessity for using these officers by giving them education in hydraulics, electricity, and foreign languages.
MR. ARCHDALEsaid he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for West Newington in regard to the question of teaching foreign languages. At present when a naval officer became an in-
1068
terpreter, unless he was appointed to a flag-ship, he got no extra pay at all. That was no encouragement to officers to study foreign languages. At the same time, he thought that the Admiralty had made great strides in the matter of education. He was not one of those who thought that too much mathematics was taught, for that study was the most important part of the science of gunnery and torpedoes. As to Greek, he did not think that, unless a man was going to become a parson, it was of any use learning that language at all.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he would make a definite suggestion in order to carry out the aims of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as regarded the acquisition of foreign languages in the Navy. He was aware of the difficulty owing to the dearth of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants in the Navy, but that could be met in this way—after a young officer had passed through Greenwich, provided he showed an aptitude for a given language, he should be given six months leave of absence to go to the country where that language was spoken, and then he should be given a reward after having passed his examination.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could assure the Committee that the Admiralty had given serious consideration to this question of the higher education of naval officers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken had suggested that lieutenants should be allowed to proceed to foreign countries to learn foreign languages, but under present circumstances that was not possible. He recognised that facilities of that kind might be given, as was done in the case of foreign Navies, and half-pay officers might be inclined to take advantage of such a scheme. He recognised the value of the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Newington, but there was a very great need for the services of these officers on board ship, and, however ideal the scheme of the hon. Member was, we must face the serious practical difficulty presented by this need for officers. The hon. Member for the Elland Division expressed a thought which must have been present in the mind of

1069
every Member who had studied the question of the relations of the Navy to the Colonies, and it was rather interesting to reflect that the flag officer who was about to command on the North America Station was himself a Canadian cadet who had passed successfully through the junior ranks of the Navy. The suggestion of the hon. Member that there should be a preliminary examination in the Colonies to enable Colonial cadets to satisfy themselves that they would be able to take up a naval career on coming to this country was entitled to favourable consideration.
Vote agreed to.
7. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £65,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of scientific services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903."
MR. O'MARAsaid that very little objection could be taken to this Vote as a whole. There were, however, several items to which he desired to call attention. There was under Vote B for the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, an item "Expenses of Board of Visitors, £85." He did not object to an annual lunch for the Board of Visitors, but he could not imagine how their expenses came to £85, unless they broke the windows after the lunch. Unless he had some assurance that this expenditure would not happen again, he must move a reduction of the Vote by £85. There were a few other items in the Vote which required some explanation. He was glad that they did not have a total solar eclipse every year, because the last time, in May, 1901, it cost the country £500. Then there was another sum of £200 for the "determination of the longitude of Paris," and another £100 for the "determination of the solar parallax from photographs of Eros." He did not see the utility of expenditure of this kind. He noticed that the "Calculations for Ten Year Star Catalogue" only cost £50, and he submitted that a very important and useful catalogue like that ought not to be cut down simply because the taxpayer was overtaxed owing to the war in South Africa. He hoped they would
1070
have a satisfactory explanation of these items. He moved a reduction of the Vote by £85 under sub-head B.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £65,515, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
MR. KEARLEYcalled attention to the robbery of old relics from the Greenwich Museum. He wished to know if any of those relics had been recovered, and also whether the museum building had now been placed in a position of security so that a robbery of that kind could not occur again.
MR. PRETYMAN: I regret to say that none of these relics have been recovered, and no trace of them has been heard of since the robbery occurred. Most careful precautions have been taken since the theft to render the museum secure, and the inner part has been turned into a strong room. It has also been placed more directly under the charge of the Metropolitan Police instead of pensioners, who, though quite as zealous as the former, were not so skilled in the prevention of crime.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he wished to allude to the item of £300 for the Royal United Service Institute. This money was allocated for the benefit of the education of the naval services. The money was very properly given, but what was happening was that there was a general decline in the number of naval papers and discussions at the Institution as compared with the number of military papers. As the Admiralty were giving £300 to assist this Institution, he asked his hon. friend to go into this matter, and he would find that his statement that naval papers and discussions were being blotted out by degrees was correct. One reason, of course, for this was that there were more military than naval officers at home. But another reason was that there was an impression among young officers in the Navy that they were liable to get a black mark against their names if they read papers or took part in discussions on matters naval at the institution. He would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to give him an undertaking that he would make inquiries into the matter, and, if he

1071
found that this impression did exist, that he would take some steps to disabuse the minds of naval officers of the idea that there was any prejudice against them on this account, or that the Admiralty in any way deprecated or disliked discussions or papers being read on naval matters at the United Service Institution by naval officers.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was a ridiculous contradiction for the Admiralty, on the one hand, to give £300 a year to the United Service Institution for the purpose of encouraging the discussion of military and naval matters, and, on the other hand, to prohibit in set terms naval officers from reading papers. He called attention to this matter in 1893, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe, who then represented the Admiralty in this House, was not ashamed to get up in his place and defend what he considered the most outrageous prohibition of a very useful paper. It was absurd for the Admiralty to go on prohibiting the reading of useful papers by naval officers, and at the same time to go on subscribing £300 a year to the United Service Institution. The military papers read at the Institution were most interesting, but it was a fact that there was almost an absolute dearth of naval papers. That was not because naval officers were indisposed to write or were incapable of writing on naval subjects, but because they believed that the Admiralty looked with displeasure on the discussion by naval officers of naval matters. If that was an unfounded belief, he thought much good would be done if the Admiralty would let it be known that it was so.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that this was a matter of which he had no personal knowledge, but he should like to point out, so far as the discussion of naval matters at the United Service Institution was concerned, that the very last paper read there was on a naval subject, and that the naval essays which were published in the Journal of the Institution were mostly written by young officers. He would say that, so far from such a course getting a black mark put against the name of an officer, he regarded it as a most useful contribution
1072
to contemporary naval science. He had no right to defend the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe, but he could conceive circumstances in which it would not only be right for, but the duty of, the Admiralty to desire officers who had recently been occupying positions on active service not to deal with matters which in one aspect were military, but which in another aspect were political, and he should not like, on the part of the Admiralty, to make any general statement which would interfere with the exercise of the clear right that that must always be. Before the Vote was passed, he should like to call attention to a small item in the Vote for the Cape Observatory, and to say what a great work was being done by Sir David Gill there, who was measuring the meridian from the south of Africa to the northern-most point of Europe. Though small means were allowed him, Sir David Gill was really doing an international work.
Question put, and negatived.
8. £286,900, Royal Naval Reserves.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,190,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the staff for Engineer services, and expenditure for Royal Engineer works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad (including purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that several Members of the Committee would like some information with regard to the item in respect of the works at Aldershot and Salisbury Plain. The cost of the works at both these places was divided between the Works Vote and this Vote. The item in this Vote under which that matter arose was a special grant for barracks, and so on. He believed it was generally conceded that there must be a great deal of such work at both places. Another item he wished to refer to was on page 70, where there was a large sum taken for the acquisition of land for the erection of torpedo factories, etc. The

1073
original work was to cost £40,000, the, amount already voted for that purpose, including revotes, was £70,000, and the probable expenditure to the 31st of March was put at £30,000. Why should so much be required to be spent for factories for the manufacture of army torpedoes? He would very much like to know what a torpedo factory for the Army was. The hon. Member also commented upon the item for the reconstruction of the drainage of the London Wellington Barracks, which, he said, struck him as being very curious. For years it was known that these barracks were in a shameful condition of drainage, and for a long time complaints had been made with regard to them. Last year the Government put down £3,000 as the estimated cost of repairing the drains, but only asked for £1,000. That was a most curious proceeding, because if anything had to be done all at one time, he should have thought it was repairing drains. But the present state of things was even more peculiar, because the estimate of that expenditure had now risen to £7,500, and only £2,000 was to be spent this year, making in all £3,000 out of £7,500. This was draining by driblets, but in his opinion the work should be all done at once. This item also seemed to include certain buildings which were not down in the Vote. At least, he assumed that that was the case, as they were not mentioned elsewhere. With regard to ranges, he noticed several items on page 72 of the Estimate. He did not know whether he would be in order in referring to new ranges, as there was no new range in the Vote, but a good deal of money was being spent in improving existing rifle ranges, and he would like to know what exactly was being done. Were the Government putting up penetrable instead of impenetrable targets, or were they enlarging the rifle ranges so as to make them available for a larger number of people? He was afraid the money put down did not point to a large amount of enlargement of the ranges. He would very much like to know what was being done in the way of providing increased range accommodation for shooting.
MR. COCHRANEsaid the question of rifle ranges was a very important one, and he desired information as to what was being done to provide sufficient rifle ranges in the
1074
country. The question of training our soldiers in rifle-shooting was one of vital importance, which had been expatiated upon by all leaders of men in the country, including the present Commander-in-Chief and, he believed, the Prime Minister. Men could not learn to, shoot without ranges being provided, and it was now very often found that ranges, previously available were being closed consequence of the increase of population in the immediate neighbourhood. Short ranges were an excellent substitute for long ranges where the latter could not be obtained, and though the practice was not so interesting, men were able to learn to shoot exceedingly well at them. Such ranges could be provided in populous districts, and those were the very districts it was desirable to get at. Men took an enormous interest in learning rifle-shooting if only they had the least chance of perfecting themselves in it. When, however, an endeavour was made to provide a short safety range in the neighbourhood of a populous town, those interested could get no advice or assistance whatsoever. He suggested that there should be some expert at hand to go down and advise on the construction in such cases, and say whether the range was suitable and would be passed when made. Last year the Under Secretary of State for War in another place stated that a sum of £75,000 had been allocated to local ranges, and it would be interesting to know how much of that money had been expended. In other countries there were a great many short ranges. The Swiss were excellent shots, and lie believed that three-fourths of their ranges were short ranges. In South Africa one could not fail to be struck with the number of short ranges. There was one on nearly every Boer farm, and at no very great distance a long range at which the men might practice. Another point was with regard to the acquisition of land. Under the Military Lands Act there was power compulsorily to purchase land for ranges, but there was no power by which a local authority could hire land for such a purpose. That was a matter which might very well be considered. In his studies on this subject, he found that the difficulties now encountered were not dissimilar to those met with centuries ago, as by a Statute passed in 1457 football and golf were

1075
cried down in order that the young men might devote themselves to archery practice. He hoped the Secretary of State would give this matter his serious consideration.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEdesired to endorse in their entirety the remarks of the hon. Member on the question of rifle ranges. In this country, however, it would be almost impossible for troops, except in one or two particularly open situations, to shoot at a range of over 500 yards. Although no doubt it was essential that some practice should be indulged in at longer ranges than that, yet for all practical purposes a range of 500 yards would be ample for Volunteers. But it was no good making ranges unless facilities were afforded to Volunteers and troops for getting to them, and at present sufficient extra provision was not made in the Estimates to meet that most pressing want of the poorer Volunteer corps. He hoped that in the future the Secretary of State would be able to induce the Treasury to grant a larger allowance for this particular purpose. He also desired some further information with regard to the separation of the military from the civil side of the Royal Engineers. In the opening statement of the Secretary of State it was mentioned that a very important change had been, or was in process of being, made in the organisation of the Royal Engineers. At present the Engineers built barracks and fortifications, made drains, and did a great deal of civil work which it was not really their duty to do, with the result that a certain amount of their military work was neglected. A suggestion was made before the War Office Reorganisation Committee that pattern plans of barracks should be kept at the War Office. Such a system was in operation in India, and if a new barracks was to be built, a pattern plan was produced from the headquarters of the Army in India, which, with very few alterations, could be adapted to any special locality, with the result that a great saving was effected in the preparation of plans. That was a not unimportant point on which perhaps the Secretary of State could say a word. There was
1076
no doubt that if economies were possible at the War Office, it was mainly in connection with the cost of erecting buildings such as were now in process of erection at Salisbury Plain and other places. That was, perhaps, the most extravagant side of the War Office, and the expenditure, if carefully looked after, might be materially lessened. Another point to which he desired to refer was the question of married quarters. Most of them were in a state which was not creditable to the Army, and would not be allowed by the local sanitary authority if those married quarters fell within their control. They were not large enough, nor sufficiently well ventilated nor drained. He thought something ought to be done to meet the obvious requirements of the married men in the Army. They could not expect a soldier to get that class of woman for a wife which they all desired him to have if he was obliged to take her to one single room in the barracks which was overlooked by other quarters. It was not more than a generation ago that the married men in the barracks were simply separated by a curtain drawn across the quarters. At the present time the married quarters were far too near the ordinary barracks, and there ought to be further separation and increased accommodation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell him what was the increase of married quarters at Malta consequent upon the establishment of two battalions there. They had been told that the increase of married accommodation at Malta would he very small, and that a great number of men would he allowed separation allowances. He thought a little information upon these points would be exceedingly useful. With regard to the expenditure at Salisbury Plain, he saw that £750,000 had been taken for that purpose. Perhaps they would be told something about this expenditure. He wished to know what time would be spent there putting up barracks, and he wanted to have some general explanation of the policy of the Government at Salisbury Plain. He noticed that £13,000 had been taken for the provision of military prisons. Upon the Home Office Vote they were told that two or three prisons had been handed over by the Home Office to the War Office, and they were also told that the position of the Inspector General of

1077
Prisons was being discussed between the two Offices. As provision was now being made for the increase of military prisons, they might now be told something about the future position of the Inspector General of Prisons, and also what prison accommodation was going to be provided another for the future.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that five or six years ago at Yarmouth, in consequence of observations made by Ministers in this House upon the importance of providing ranges, the Corporation of Yarmouth acquired an admirable rifle range and camping ground for Volunteers. They got the military authorities to lay out the ground and make the arrangements, all of which was done at the expense of the Corporation on the strength of the declaration made by War Ministers. In consequence of recent changes, the Volunteers had not come to Yarmouth for some time. The Volunteers from the Midlands and the Northern Counties used to come to Yarmouth to use that camping ground and range, but now they had ceased to come. He suggested that in framing the regulations for the training of Volunteers the districts in which ranges had been provided by local authorities should be borne in mind. It was most discouraging, because other corporations would now see that when they acted upon the advice of the War Office in providing ranges their money was wasted. He wished to protest against the way this Vote was made up, because fortifications and artillery ranges had been mixed up. He wished to know if, under the numerous headings in this Vote, any money was being devoted to fortifications around London. Such things as fortifications were entirely distinct from ranges, and ought to be put down separately. Large sums of money had been put down under "submarine mining," and throughout the Estimates they would always find that item. In his opinion submarine mining was overdone, and he thought this word prove a great danger. There was also another sum of money put down for Brennan torpedoes a question which was discussed last night. He noticed that in this respect two civilian officers were employed, one at £700 a year, and other at £500. Was
1078
it true that they could not find officers capable of managing. Brennan torpedoes without having to call in civilian officers? Perhaps his noble friend would explain what was a civilian officer, and tell the Committee why one got £700 a year and another £500 for managing these Brennan torpedoes.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that they had a discussion the other night upon the Volunteer question, and the Secretary the State for War was urged to strengthen the Department which provided rifle ranges. It seemed to him that if the general officers had powers delegated to them, with regard to new rifle ranges provided by local authorities and others, the provision of ranges might be more readily undertaken. There was a great want of these ranges at the present time. One of the recommendations of the Committee which considered this question was that such powers should be delegated to the general officers. He would like to know if any of the recommendations of the Committee were being carried out. There seemed to be no reason why commanding officers should not receive power to deal with such matters as rifle ranges in their districts. He was glad that the Vote made some provision for various attractions to recruits. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member of East Bristol that some more information should be given as to the provision of married quarters. The Commander-in-Chief had shown himself interested in temperance associations. These were points which would do a great deal towards attracting men into the Army. We were at the present moment constructing a large amount of barrack accommodation, and we were told that it was not to be left altogether to the Royal Engineers in future. It would be interesting to know how far the new barracks were to be provided with the additions. Although the additions were numerous, only a comparatively small sum was to be voted.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)said that his hon. friend the Member for Lichfield had asked why no money was to be voted this year for Aldershot and Salis-

1079
bury. The reason was that last year large sums were obtained for building and reconstructing the camps, and it had been found unnecessary to ask for more money this year. The item with regard to Chatham had reference to the provision of greater space for the Navy. He entirely agreed with those hon. Members who wished to see our ranges improved, but the difficulties were great. He had pointed out before that when the Government proceeded to buy land in the open market it was extraordinary what a value the land possessed in the eyes of the sellers. If the land was bought compulsorily, the process was also expensive. The Government were taking money under the present Vote for improving existing ranges, and in previous loans they had taken large sums for providing ranges. They could not do all these things at once, but they were doing what they could in the way of purchasing new ranges and altering old ranges rendered unfit by the use of the modern rifle. He would inquire into the case of the range at Yarmouth and other corporation ranges. No one would wish to make the patriotic efforts of Town Councils unavailable, but it must be remembered that, apart from shooting, when the Volunteers went into camp there was the important question of accommodation for drill to be kept in view. If ranges could be procured on the manœuvre grounds they should be given the preference, but there was no desire to interfere with patriotic effort. With regard to the separation of the civil from the military duties of the Engineers, a Committee was sitting to consider the whole case and to make recommendations. He was sure his hon. friend would see that it was impossible for him to make a statement on the subject until the report of the Committee had been received. He hoped the Committee would be able to present a scheme which would be economical and would allow the Engineers to devote their whole attention to that work which was most useful for them in time of war. Provision was being made in this Vote for married quarters. It was a most important question, being connected with the whole question of housing, in which everybody at the present moment was interested. They were as rapidly as possible improving the old barracks and building new ones, and they were being built entirely
1080
in accord with the spirit of the present day. He had no particulars to give to, the Committee at the present moment, as he did not know exactly what the circumstances of the case were. The increase of the Estimate for Wellington Barracks was due to the complete reconstruction of the drains of the barracks. He hoped they would be able to spend the whole of the money obtained this year, and that the work would be finished off next year. The Commander-in-Chief was very much interested in the provision of temperance rooms. Everything that could be done would be done to provide rooms for Army temperance purposes. (8.10.)
MR. COURTENAY WARNERexpressed his dissatisfaction with the, answers given by the noble Lord with regard to the Wellington Barracks and the rifle ranges. The noble Lord had stated that the drainage of Wellington Barracks was not being done piecemeal, but anything more piecemeal than spending £1,000 one year, £2,000 another year, and the balance of £4,300 the third year it was impossible to conceive. He did not intend to move a reduction, but he suggested that the matter should be reconsidered, and that this work should be done at one time. With regard to the rifle ranges, the noble Lord had stated that it was usually quicker to acquire the land by private arrangement than by compulsory powers, and no doubt that was so if it could be done, but he had noticed more often than not two or three years was absorbed in trying to come to an arrangement privately, and in the end compulsory powers had to be resorted to, which took up further time, whereas if compulsory powers had been taken in the first instance, much time and expense would have been saved. One question he would put, which he had omitted to ask before; would the noble Lord say what amount was spent under the Works Loan Act in addition to this Vote, so that the Committee might form some idea of what it was that this Vote supplemented.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONalso complained of the unsatisfactory answer given in respect to the rifle ranges, and many other matters connected with "works" within the military districts. He said the fact

1081
was that the War Office, with the present pressure upon them, were unable to undertake much in the way of enquiries, and must necessarily leave much of the work they desired to see done untouched. The acquisition of rifle ranges could only be done by a devolution of power. With a devolution of powers on the Generals commanding the districts, there could be no difficulty. That was one of the recommendations of the Dawkins Committee. The Generals commanding the districts were very competent men, and they could easily look after these matters and do not work which the War Office were unable to present to do. It was stated last year that there would be a devolution of powers, and he wished to know whether powers would be given to the general officers commanding districts to look into local needs.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he desired to emphasise the point of his hon. friend as to the devolution of powers to the general officers commanding districts. With regard to works in those districts, he advocated powers being devolved upon them involving expenditure on works up to £5,000. He also suggested that when once money had been allocated to a particular work, the general officer commanding a district should be entitled to spend the money as he thought best.
LORD STANLEY: I can only give the hon. Member half an assurance, for this reason. I am absolutely in accord with him and the hon. Member for Leith who spoke on this point. Devolution, I believe, is the only satisfactory way in which we shall get
these matters throngh, but at the present moment the whole of the question as to the future of the engineering branch of the War Office is under consideration. It is no use making rules and regulations now that, when the Report comes out, will have to be altered. We do not want to lay down a hard and fast line until everything has been considered. But we have done this. We have told the general officers commanding districts that sums are allocated for certain works, and we have asked them to make their own suggestions and their own plans, and, without actually allowing them to make the contracts, we are, as far as possible, taking their advice on every subject and are following it out in every subject connected with administration. Therefore, without binding ourselves to a hard and fast line, we are doing all that hon. Members really want. I assure them nobody is more sanguine as to the good effects of devolution than my right hon. friend and myself.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can you let us see the Report you refer to?
LORD STANLEY:It is not issued yet.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: But will you?
LORD STANLEY:My right hon. friend will consider the matter.
(8.55.) Question put.
The Committee divded:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 72.)

AYES.

Aeland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bond, Edward

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

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Bousfield, William Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Brassey, Albert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Arehdale, Edward Mervyn

Brigg, John

Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon, St. John

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Arrol, Sir William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Austin, Sir John

Caldwell, James

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cameron, Robert

Dalziel, James Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Balcarres, Lord

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Denny, Colonel

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cawley, Frederick

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bigwood, James

Chapman, Edward

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Doughty, George

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Duke, Henry Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Duncan, J. Hastings

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sadler, Col. Sammel Alexander

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Lowe, Francis Wiliam

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fenwick, Charles

Macdona, John Comming

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Maelver, David (Liverpool)

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Finch, George H.

Majendie, James A. H.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mansfield, Horace Rendell

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Fitzoy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Maxwell, W JH(Dumfries-hire

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Flannery, Sir Forteseue

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Flower, Ernest

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Forster, Henry William

More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.)

Foster, Philips S (Warwick, S. W.

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Thomas, J A Glamorgan, Gower

Gardner, Eruest

Morrason, James Archibald

thorburn, Sir Walter

Garfit, William

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Valentia, Viscount

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Webb, Colonel William George

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Groves, James Grimble

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hall, Edward Marshall

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury

White, George (Norfolk)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

White, Luke(York, E. R.)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Pierpoint, Robert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Plummer, Walton R.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Havter Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Henderson, Alexander

Price, Robert John

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hogg, Lindsay

Purvis Robert

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

Holland, William Henry

Randles, John S.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

wylie, Alexander

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Yoxall, James Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rea, Russell

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Renwick, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Kitson, Sir James

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

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

Ambrose, Robert

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Dowd, John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Blake, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Boland, John

Lundon, W.

O'Malley, William

Campbell, John (Arunagh, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Mara, James

Cogan, Denis J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Mac Veagh, Jerenniah

O'Shee, Jame-John

Crean, Eugene

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cremer, William Randal

M'Kean, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cullinan J.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Roche, John

Delany, William

Mooney, John J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, John

Sullivan, Donal

Farrell, James Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Young, Samuel

Gilhooly, James

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

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

10. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,786,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for retired pay, half-pay, and other non-effective charges
1084
for officers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
COLONEL LEGGEdesired to call attention to certain matters connected with the reserve of officers. That reserve was composed of officers who had retired from the Army on pensions or with gratuities, and certain other officers. These officers either voluntarily retired or were retired compulsorily. Those to whom the latter remark applied, were retired compulsorily not because of age or inefficiency, but in order to keep up the flow of promotion in the junior ranks. These officers, on retirement, retained their rank and were entitled to wear the uniform of their regiment. They appeared in the Army list, in the general list of the reserve of officers, and also in the regimental list; and they were liable to be called on for service in time of emergency. That time of emergency arose two years ago, and a certain number of these officers were called on, a great many to serve at home, and a few abroad. When they were brought back to the Army it was in their regimental rank, and not with the Army rank, the rank they retained when they left the service. This was felt to be a great injustice. He had been told that it was impossible to treat them in any other way, that it would not have been fair to bring them back to the regiment and stop the promotion of officers then serving. It was quite true that the promotion of those officers would have been temporarily impeded, but when it was considered that many of these officers had been placed on the reserve to keep up the flow of promotion of those serving with the colours, he did not think there would have been any great injustice in allowing them temporarily to come back to the service, not only with the rank they held in the regiment, but with the rank they held in the Army. He had also been told that there were difficulties in the way of bringing them back to the regiments, although they were borne on the reserve lists of the regiments to which they formerly belonged. But there need have been no difficulty about that. It would have been quite easy to have brought them back, perhaps not to the places they originally held, but certainly in their rank, even though they were put at the bottom of the list. That was
1086
done where an officer exchanged from one regiment to another, and although he ranked as junior, he retained his Army rank in the service. Another point was with regard to the payment of these officers. Officers who had retired on a pension, when brought back to the Army, received the regimental pay of their rank, in which that pension was included. In the case of officers who retired with a gratuity, it was true the royal warrant laid down that they should be called upon to pay something back when recalled to the service, but the War Office apparently Lad such difficulty a few years ago in enforcing that repayment, that they waived their claim, and these officers were allowed to retain the whole of the gratuity. Therefore, these officers were serving under different conditions front the officers who had retired on pension. It had also to be borne in mind that the latter had served considerably longer and lead had had more experience than the former. It was a great mistake that more of these officers had not elm employed. Regiments had become short of officers, and the places of those who had fallen out had been supplied by sending out very young boys indeed. One of the most distressing things connected with the war was the large number of very young officers who had lost their lives. He really thought that some of these older officers of experience might have been sent out, and the younger men kept a little longer at home until they were more fully trained and could better take their places in the field. Under present arrangements, the reserve of officers was composed almost entirely of field officers and captains; there were no subalterns available. If there was to be a reserve of officers it should be a proper reserve, one of all ranks, who might be called upon to fill vacancies in regiments as they occurred. A further point was that according to the royal warrant, officers so recalled were eligible for promotion, and also, under certain circumstances, to increase of pension. He had not, however, heard of a single instance in which such an officer had received either promotion or increase of pension, and he thought the War Office had taken very good care that they should not do so. He desired to impress upon the War

1087
Office the necessity of having a real reserve of officers, and of treating them fairly when they had them; and in order to raise the point he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,785,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Colonel Legge.)
THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I think my hon. friend is perfectly entitled to move this reduction of £100, bearing in mind the position he takes up with regard to this subject. I think, however, that his contentions are hardly borne out by the facts. I may say in two or three words that I sympathise very much with my hon. and gallant friend's position in regard to retired officers. It is perfectly obvious that these officers have been placed under difficult onerous obligations extending over two or three years, and I quite recognise that their case is a very difficult one. I am riot in a postion tonight to make any promises on the subject to my hon. and gallant friend. Before I came to the War Office, the question as to what emoluments they should receive had
been decided upon, and it was not anticipated at first that the call on their services would be so prolonged as it has been. The position of these gentlemen was settled between the War Office and the Treasury before I took office. I sympathise very much with them, seeing that they have been called upon, at considerable sacrifice, to place their services at the country's disposal. I can only-say, however, that, with the Commander-in-Chief, I am carefully studying what the position is and what it may be in our power to do for these officers on whom the call has fallen so heavily. I am afraid I cannot say more. I am looking into the whole question in a sympathetic spirit, and I hope I shall be able to make some answer upon it before the question is again discussed. I hope that my hon. and gallant friend will not press his Amendment.
COLONEL LEGGE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(9.19.) Original Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 73.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Charrington, Spencer

Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Gardner, Ernest

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Garfit, William

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Arrol, Sir William

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Austin, Sir John

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Groves, James Grimble

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dalziel, James Henry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Baird, John George Alexander

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hambro, Charles Eric

Balcarres, Lord

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Denny, Colonel

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Banbury, Frederick George

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Henderson, Alexander

Bigwood, James

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doughty, George

Holland, William Henry

Bond, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Bousfield, William Robert

Duke, Henry Edward

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Brassey, Albert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Brigg, John

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fenwick, Charles

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Caldwell, James

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

Kitson, Sir James

Cameron, Robert

Finch, George H.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Cawley, Frederick

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Flower, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Forster, Henry William

Lowe, Francis William

Chapman, Edward

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Macdona, John Cumming

Purvis, Robert

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Randles, John S.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Majendie, James A. H.

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Ratcliff, R. F.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Rea, Russell

Tomkinson, James

Maxwell, W.J.H(D'mfriesshire

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Renwick, George

Valentia, Viscount

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Webb, Colonel William George

Morgan, David J.(W'lthamstow)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

White, George (Norfolk)

Morrison, James Archibald

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morton, Arthur H. A. Deptford

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Russell, T. W.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Murray, RtHn. A. Graham (Bute

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wilson. Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Smith, H.C(N'rth'mb. Tyneside

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Soares, Ernest J.

Wylie, Alexander

Pierpoint, Robert

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Yoxall, James Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Plummer, Walter R.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stone, Sir Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Pretyman, Ernest George

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Price, Robert John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester).

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

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

Ambrose, Robert

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Dowd, John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Blake, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Boland, John

Lundon, W.

O'Malley, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Mara, James

Cogan, Denis J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Shauglmessy, P. J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

O'Shee, James John

Crean, Eugene

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cremer, William Randal

M'Kean, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Cullinan, J.

M?Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Roche, John

Delany, William

Mooney, John J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, John

Sullivan, Donal

Farrell, James Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Young, Samuel

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Gilhooly, James

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

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hardy, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

11. £1,747,000, Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
SIR H.CAMPBELLBANNERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state what arrangements he proposes to make for the purpose of having a further discussion on what is called his scheme—his new proposals—with regard to the Army. It was understood that there was to he some opportunity after the 21st of this month, and a good many embers are interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can say anything definite as to the time the discussion will take place.
MR. BRODRICK: My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury will make a statement on Thursday after questions with regard to business. I understand that Thursday id next week is tinder consideration as the day for the discussion.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it was understood that Thursday in next week was to he given to the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
MR. BRODRICK: On Thursday my right hon. friend will make his statement. It is thoroughly understood there will he a day for the discussion of the new proposals as to the Army.
Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND—JUDGE O'CONNOR MORRIS.
MR. O'MALLEYrose to move the Resolution standing in his name with respect to Judge O'Connor Morris. He said there was no greater scandal in connection with the English government of Ireland than the manner in which the judges were appointed. It was quite true that gentlemen were appointed to judgeships in England who were strong political partisans, but once they were appointed, their partisanship was forgotten, and they administered the law as the law should be administered. Unfortunately, that was not the ease in Ireland. In that country, no doubt, ability and qualification were taken into consideration, but the primary and dominant consideration when the Government made an appointment was that the man should be a political partisan and almost a hater and detester of the sentiments of the people. Not only were men appointed judges in Ireland because of their opposition to the theories and aspirations of the Irish people, but men who began their career by bring extreme Nationalists were appointed because the English Government thought it was desirable to buy the services of those people. The Government bribed them with places in Ireland.
In regard to the particular gentleman whose conduct he ventured to arraign tonight, he thought that in the whole history of appointments in Ireland there was none so gross and scandalous. He could understand that a man, before getting that position, might have strong political feeling, but in England, as he had said, a man ceased to be a partisan the moment he received the appointment. Judge O'Connor Morris never lost an opportunity of ventilating his political opinions and of denouncing the people over whom he presided as a judge. He did not confine himself to speeches from the Bench, but from time to time indulged in writing political pamphlets. In order to give the House an object-lesson of why there was discontent in Ireland and why they hated the English Government, he would quote a few extracts from the
1092
writings of Judge O'Connor Morris. He would appeal to the House after hearing the extracts, whether the Nationalist Members were not justified in impugning the conduct of Judge Morris. In his autobiography (page 347) Judge Morris said—
"As a scion of a great fallen Irish house, I have no sympathy with a settlement of the Irish land, renting ultimately on confiscation and conquest."
Of course, as they were all aware, this House was beginning to learn that the great question in Ireland was the land question. He would show the character of one of the judges in Ireland and his feelings on that question by quoting what he himself said at page 349 of this book. Judge Morris, in arguing against Home Rule, said—
"An Irish Parliament would without difficulty drive away the Irish landlords from the land, and would divide their estates between the Celtic and Catholic nation."
That was a calumny on the Irish people. He thought this gentleman was also a Catholic. [Cries of "No."] Then he was not inclined to speak so hardly of him, because he was a Protestant. Judge Morris tried to prove by that statement that if the Irish Catholics had Home Rule they would persecute the Protestants of the north, confiscate their property, and treat them with ignominy and contempt. In a harangue which this gentleman made in Sligo on 24th January, 1902, his language was so violent, and his partisanship was so great, that even the Grand Jury were disgusted. This was the comment of a local newspaper on the incident—
"The Grand Jury at the recent Quarter Sessions in Sligo (24th January, 1902), after listening to a harangue from Judge O'Connor Morris attacking the system of land purchase, subsequently passed a resolution dissenting, from his remarks. The Grand Jury was composed of Nationalists and Conservatives."
Now, it was known on those Benches what a powerful enemy they had in The Times newspaper, and that throughout its history it had been consistently opposed to the Irish demands. Judge O'Connor Morris had been a regular contributor to The Times as one of its leader-writers. In his autobiography he told a story of himself. "Mr. Delane," he said at page 205, "was good enough to ask me to,

1093
write to The Times. This was the beginning of a friendship which continued without a break until his lamented death." And at page 274 he said—
"In one respect The Times deserves the heartfelt thanks of all who uphold the cause of Union, and believe that Home Rule, and what is involved in it, means anarchy in Ireland and a heavy blow to the Empire. The immense sacrifice its proprietors made in the conduct of this prolonged inquiry (the Parnell Commission) is a noble instance of high public spirit."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): What was the date of that?
MR. O'MALLEY: 1895.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He was a judge for twenty years.
MR. O'MALLEY: The House knows perfectly well the part played by Judge O'Connor Morris in the Parnell inquiry, and I would only say that a man who praised in that manner the conduct of The Times is not fit to be on the bench. Mr. Morris published in 1901 a book entitled "From '98 to '98." I will just quote a few extracts from that book to show the character of this man. Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1881 was a tardy measure of justice to the Irish people. I have spoken of it from platforms in Ireland and in this country as a measure which raised the people from a position of serfdom to a position of freedom. But what does this gentleman say of that great Land Act? He said that—
"Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1881 was a paltry, nay, a mischievous half-measure."
And of the Land Act of 1887, passed by this House under a Tory Government in order to remedy some defects in the Act of 1881, he said—
"It was another encroachment on the rights of Irish landlords."
This is the man on whose judgment we have to depend in Ireland for the administration of these Acts! At page 332 he says—
"The status of the Irish landlords, on the other hand, has been utterly degraded to his extreme detriment. He has not only been deprived of his former status, but his lands have been practically taken from him in the sense of real and uncontrolled ownership."
1094
Let me go back to The Times and the system before 1881—
"The Act has almost turned upside down the rights of property, to the benefit of one class and the loss of another, from 1876 to the present time."
These are words that would do credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, who is not present in the House tonight. I will give a few extracts from a pamphlet which Judge O'Connor Morris wrote last year, entitled "Present Irish Questions." He says, at page 163—
"It (the Land Act of 1881) was a surrender akin to that of Majuba, made with little information and without mature reflection. Whether its author believed, as I have remarked, that the conspiracy was most dangerous on its agrarian side, or was willing to propitiate Parnell at the expense of the Irish landed gentry, he inaugurated the legislation ever since pursued, which has resulted in destroying the property of the Irish landlords."
Again, at page 181, he says—
"The whole law, in a word, as to tenants' improvements, as these were to create exemption from rent, was placed on an altogether new basis. This was detrimental in every respect to the landlord, and gave advantages to the tenant, in my judgment, utterly unjust."
At page 166 he says—
"The Act of 1881 was inconsistent with fact and essentially unjust."
And at page 169 he goes on—
"The Act of 1881 transformed the Irish Land System iniquitously for the benefit of a single class, and it directly promoted litigation of the very worst kind."
Further on he says—
"The Irish landlords, I repeat, have been iniquitously despoiled; a huge confiscation has been made of their property."
I will not trouble the House with any further extracts from the writings of Judge O'Connor Morris, but I would appeal to hon. Members, if they consider the character of the language I have quoted, if they consider for a moment the character of the mind of this gentleman and his hatred and detestation of the Land Act of 1881, whether that gentleman should continue to sit on the bench and administer that Act. Hon. Members opposite very often, with a simplicity which is almost angelic, say, "Tell us, what your grievances are, and we will remove them." I say, here is a case where the House can deal with a grievance and remove it. Remove Judge O'Connor Morris. I maintain that it is a scandal to the adminis

1095
tration of justice in this country that such a man as Judge O'Connor Morris's writings and utterances show him to be should be allowed to preside in Irish Courts.
MR. McHUGHsaid, in rising to second the Motion, he was not actuated by any feelings of malevolence towards learned Judge O'Connor Morris. He had the honour of being personally acquainted with the learned judge; he had sat beside him and had adjudicated at the Quarter Sessions at Sligo, and he had been twice in the dock before him and twice sentenced by him to imprisonment. But he thought it was well for the House to consider under present circumstances the last portion of the Motion—
"His fitness to hear and decide appeals from the court of summary jurisdiction in agrarian cases"
He made no complaint as to Judge O'Connor Morris being a partisan of the Government, but he did complain that the learned judge was a partisan of the landlord class in Ireland, and that he was the man who tried persons charged with agrarian offences. He himself had been tried on two occasions for articles written in his paper in Sligo—written on behalf of the tenants of County Sligo; and he contended that Judge O'Connor Morris was not a fit and proper person to try him. On those occasions he was sentenced once to six months and once to four months imprisonment as a common criminal, and he did not on either occasion get fair play. The treatment meted out to him years ago was the treatment meted out at the present time by the Irish Government to John O'Donnell and to other members of the National Organisation of Ireland.
The Motioncalled upon the House to consider the report of an address delivered by Judge O'Connor Morris to the Grand Jury of Sligo on the 24th of January last in the Sligo Court House. The report of that address, which he held in his hand, contained the names of the Grand Jurors, twenty-four in all, of whom thirteen were Conservative and eleven Nationalists. After the speech which was delivered by Judge O'Connor Morris, which, in his opinion, was of a partisan character, and which dealt with matters that a judge had no right to touch upon, the Grand
1096
Jury unanimously passed a Resolution in the following terms—
"Resolved, that we, the Members of Grand Jury, in view of his Lordship's remarks to us, feel it our duty to express our dissent from those remarks in so far as they refer to compulsory land purchase; and desire to express our conviction that a measure of compulsory land purchase would not be at all of the nature of a confiscation of landlords' rights, but would be the most effective means that could be taken by the Government to ensure peace and prosperity to Ireland."
That resolution was proposed by Mr. R. Davey, a district councillor, seconded by Mr. E. Rowlett, also a district councillor, and Mr. R. Gorman, the Chairman, who put the question, was a well-known Conservative gentleman. On this occasion there was only one case of a criminal character at the Quarter Sessions, and it would appear from the report of the learned judge's speech that he was sorry there were not more, because he said—
"Well, gentlemen, there are only three Bills to go before you, which do not require any observations."
The Clerk of the Crown then interrupted him, and said—
"Only one, my Lord."
His Honour—
"Well, gentlemen, it appears there is only one Bill to go before you."
He objected first of all to the opening of Judge O'Connor Morris. The learned judge, in opening his remarks, said—
"Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I am glad to see that at the beginning of the year—and on a wet day like this—you all have given a full attendance for the discharge of your important duties as Grand Jurors. I am very glad to find that you have not paid the slightest attention to the exceedingly improper and foolish advice given to jurors of this county to abstain from doing their duty on a plea which was as ridiculous as it was vindictive."
The learned judge, in making those remarks, had presumed that the jurors of Sligo had been advised not to attend Quarter Sessions. He need not tell the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General that there was no foundation for such a belief. There was undoubtedly a suggestion that Catholic jurors, as a protest against jury-packing, should remain away from the Quarter Sessions, but the suggestion was never carried out. The time had not come when Catholic jurors

1097
should be called upon to remain at home because the Attorney General appeared to have abandoned the practice of jury-packing; he had found a simpler method—he had done away with trial by jury altogether. At the present time the only trial for a Nationalist charged with an agrarian offence was a trial by two paid servants of the Crown—two removable magistrates—with an appeal to Judge O'Connor Morris.—
"Gentlemen, I have very few observations to make to you, and I am sure you will pay attention to what I say, It is with sincere regret—sincere regret, I say it—and the majority of the spectators in this court will agree with me—that an eminent solicitor belonging to this court—and I say, without flattery, one of the most eminent solicitors in Ireland—was summarily dismissed from office under circumstances which I may not describe, and which will impose on the taxpayers of this district additional burdens."
What had Judge O'Connor Morris to do with the business of the "additional burdens"? He was simply a County Court judge. The County Council was bar better able to manage its own business, and was far more dignified in the discharge of its duties than the learned judge. What had he to do with the appointment of a solicitor to the County Council? The County Council understood its own business, and had dispensed with the services of a solicitor who was engaged in prosecuting its members under the Coercion Act. The dismissal was an act of war and retaliation, for which there was every justification. He contended that they were justified in dismissing the solicitor, but this was made an excuse by Judge O'Connor Morris for this tirade. The County Council of Sligo was responsible to the people of Sligo, and not to Judge O'Connor Morris. Then the Judge proceeded—
"So far that is satisfactory. But you must recollect that it is only a few months since the winter Assizes were held. But although on the surface the state of your county mar appear satisfactory, under the surface it is not satisfactory. From information which cannot be questioned—it is a well-known fact that boycotting exists to a considerable extent, it inevitably leads to serious offences. The practice of boycotting is an incentive to crime, and those who aid, abet, or advocate it are guilty of crime. All our experience has proved it is always attended by disorder and misrule. But, gentlemen, I regret to say that there has been a combination established against the payment of rents, which was very extensive in the county of Roscommon, and which has
1098
extended to this county also. I think I gave 240 decrees for rents in Roscommon and Sligo. But, gentlemen, it is with sincere delight I heard that this combination, to a certain extent, has broken down, and that a large number of the tenants have seen the folly of their ways, and have come in and have paid their just debts, by paying their rents with costs. What were the inevitable and natural results? The landlords of all the neighbouring estates are wronged; they are all severely handicapped by the act of the Government. In point of fact, as regards the landlords of those neighbouring estates the Government spread disorder and confusion everywhere. Viewing it from another point, those tenants are not to be blamed for withholding their rents and refusing to lay their just debts. I am glad to say, however, that many have paid them under compulsion, but they lost the advantages which tenants on the neighbouring estates had gained. As low, as human nature is what it is, it would be Impossible not to say that they had sonic cause for doing what they did. I declare I maintain they had a legitimate and real grievance. It would take more time than I am going to use to deal with all the mischief caused by this so-called Land Purchase Scheme. At the same time, I think I have done my duty in pointing out the results. In the first place, many of these decrees granted—against which frivolous appeals have been foolishly taken—will be executed, and then the result will be loss and trouble. And I trust it will not be followed by crime and outrage. With regard to this Land Purchase Scheme, I believe it must end in mime and disorder. It will never prove satisfactory and will eventually enforce on the taxpayers enormous burdens and cause a confiscation the lands in Ireland, which would be the most infamous system that Ireland could ever be subjected to. I am thankful to say that from the first this scandalous system was proposed, I protested against it. I must also add that I trust the attention of the Legislature will be carefully directed towards these cases, because a demand will be made to extend this system. It is a system destructive of all the few rights which remain to the landlords, and will lead to the confiscation and alternate destruction of the country."
He did not intend to make any reference to the publication of the observations of Judge O'Connor Morris, but he asked the House to remember that when they in Sligo were tried, as he had no doubt they would be, for being members of the United Irish League and for being engaged in what he contended was a constitutional and legitimate action, when they were taken up at the instance of the landlord class of Ireland, the fate that awaited them was trial, in the first instance by two paid servants of the Crown, and that in the second, on appeal, they would be tried by the learned Judge O'Connor Morris, whom they charged as being unfit to discharge

1099
the high duties entrusted to him, owing to his being a partisan of the landlords, and against them.
Motion made and Question proposed,—"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the report of an address delivered by Judge O'Connor Morris to the Grand Jury at Sligo on the 24th day of January, 1902, the complaints that have been made of the partisan character of that address, the action of the Grand Jury to whom it was addressed, the practice indulged in by his Honour of making pronouncements from the bench in Sligo and Roscommon on questions of public policy, his Lordship's publication of partisan brochures on the Land Question in Ireland, and his fitness to hear and decide appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction in agrarian cases."—(Mr. O'Malley.)
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was glad to see the manner in which the Attorney General for Ireland had been impressed by the language of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he inferred from the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to speak that he did not intend to rise and defend this ermined eccentric. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman—knowing as he did something of the conditions of the country and the people—having regard to the legislation passed by his Party in 1886 and 1887, and the legislation they proposed to pass in 1902, whether it would not well become him to rise at that Table, and in the name of justice, decency, and common sense, repudiate this fusilade of which they had just heard the rattle. He could not conceive why the Government, on a question of this kind, found it necessary to embitter their relations with the Irish people by not adopting a commonsense view. Put the question from an English point of view. There was a war now going on between this country and the Boers; opinions were divided upon it. Supposing some English judge trying some Old Bailey charge a burglary in the city—was to take occasion to praise the great statesmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and to talk of the Boers as being murderous and so forth, or to say the Boers were the bravest people under the
1100
sun and their conduct commended itself to the admiration of the civilised world, how long would that judge be tolerated in his position? Take another instance; there passed through this House a few years ago a Workmen's Compensation Act, which was administered almost wholly by County Court judges. It was a raw, crude Act, having been drafted by the Colonial Secretary with the view, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that everybody might understand it. Would it be tolerated if, in one of the cases under that Act, the County Court judge were to publicly stigmatise the right hon. Gentleman's legislation as absurd, and to say that the master man could not live under this Act, and that if there was any further extension of it, the country would be ruined? What County Court judge would sit twenty-four hours in the chair of justice after making declarations of that sort? But England was not seamed and fissured by historic divisions; divisions had not been created between one class and another; religious differences did not exist in England to the same extent as in Ireland. In the case of Ireland, whenever they asked for local administration, the Government said that such was the division amongst the Irish people, that the only chance of civil government in the country was that the presidents of the Courts of Justice should be men of great and imperial impartiality. Yet they found, where the matter touched the daily bread and the daily life of the people of Ireland, that partisans worked every Act that was passed to improve the country. When they were sent out from this Parliament—where many good Acts were passed—they were sent out to. Ireland to be slaughtered, in pursuance, he supposed, of the old proverb that "God sends meat and the devil sends cooks." When they launched a measure from this country dealing with Irish land legislation, and fixing fair rents and compensation for improvements, it was into the hands of a judge like O'Connor Morris that it was committed.
The mistake this man made was that he was too outspoken. They all thought like him. This man was only a fool, and a frank fool at that, and accordingly he had let out of him the gall which was splitting the interiors of the rest. Let the House take his criticisms of agrarian

1101
measures. The Attorney General himself, not in regard to this puny and petty functionary, but in regard to superior Court functionaries, had had to go down to his constituents and defend the drafting of his own measures. But were they ever found criticising the drafting of the Coercion Act, and asking whether that was not a most puzzling measure? No: no Coercion Act ever puzzled an Irish judge. In regard to a code which touched their daily life, the people were expected to be loyal and contented with the administration of justice, while this gentleman, not once or twice, but throughout a long career, had been assailing hard-won reforms, wrought by the Parliament of the country. A good plan for dealing with carping judges would be—they were so constantly assailing the wisdom of Parliament, though they were themselves frequently reversed on appeal—to treat such matters as a contempt of Parliament, and as their salaries could not be docked, those having been conveniently placed in the Consolidated Fund, hale these judges up at the Bar of the House, as was done with the editor of the Globe, for an attack on the dignity of the House, and either fine them or send them to the Clock Tower. If they spent a few days in that interesting retreat, he ventured to say there would he less confluent on the wisdom of Parliament. Appeals in coercion cases, arising out of the Land question, were now to come up in Roscommon, and did not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in the limited cases in which an appeal was allowed from the Removables, Mr. O'Connor Morris had, by the language which the House had just heard, disqualified himself as an appellate tribunal? He ventured to think that Kritzinger would get a fairer trial from a court martial in Africa than any of his hon. friends would obtain in an appeal before Mr. O'Connor Morris. Here they had a man blazing with passion, gifted—if he might use the word—with a certain itch for writing, for dealing with these burning topics; and because he was allowed to put horsehair on his head, that, forsooth, became a sort of aureole of equity; and, adorned with this nimbus, he became an impartial being, fit to try, in all the calmness of a
1102
judicial atmosphere, those who were brought before him for offences against the agrarian code. But a man could not be a partisan one day, and an impartial judge the next. A man could not go shrieking around against the authority and dignity of Parliament itself, condemning its legislation, and be prepared to mete out justice to poor peasants who found themselves placed in a position of difficulty owing to the stringency of the seasons.
What had this Purchase Act done? The hon. Member had not expressed very much approval of the action of the Congested Districts Board in buying up the whole Dillon estate for a huge sum of money, and leaving a number of other tenants out in the cold. But, at any rate, the action of the Government had this magic in it—that there was no longer any crime, hunger, or discontent on the Dillon estate; there was no moonlighting on the Dillon estate; there were no unlawful assemblies, there was no boycotting, and there were no true bills sent up to O'Connor Morris from the Dillon estate. Yet this purchase, which, as it were, like the wizardry of a magician, had cleared an hitherto infested area and banished crime from its ambit, was the very thing which this gentleman sitting on the bench of justice assailed as an Act of wickedness, madness, and confiscation. What was to be thought of a system which produced such men? Where did the Government get him? He had not Thom's Directory—that arsenal of facts—by him, but he had no doubt, if he were to endeavour to trace this gentleman's career, He could, without much difficulty, give a sketch of what his past had been. Was it by legal attainments and hard work that his place was won? No. He supposed he was some slavish hanger-on of some dancing Viceroy; that in some way he had perhaps placated some lovely lady at Court; that he hung around the library at the heels of the Attorney General; and that whenever some job was to be done at an election for a Government, he went down in the days of the narrow franchise and squared the voters through the hole in the wall. Those were the step-ladders to office—at any rate, they were until very recent times. But there was this difference between this

1103
judge and his brethren. He, having got safely seated in the seventh heaven, with his cool £1,500 a year, payable quarterly, and he supposed his cousin in office as registrar—[An Hon. MEMBER: His son]—oh, his son—instead of drawing his salary for his three or four weeks work and then going off to the Riviera for his health during the remainder of the time, he unbosomed himself in the manner of which the House had heard—instead of imitating his brethren, who at least endeavoured in measured sentences, and only when the Government required it, to deliver themselves of judicial pronouncements. For instance, he had read on the preceding day that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the Cabinet meeting of that day had come over with a Gladstone bag packed with extracts from the charges of the judges at the late assizes. That was playing the game, that was cricket, when a case for renewing coercion had to be organised. Lurid "charges" must be expected at seasonable times! What he complained of in O'Connor Morris was that, in season and out of season, wet or dry, they had always to be holding up their umbrellas against his fusilades.
How long was this intolerable ranter to be allowed to poison the atmosphere, and offend the ears of the Irish people? He wanted to know whether this man, having, as he had, jurisdiction in ejectments, in actions for rent, as a petty sessions appellate tribunal, as a licensing authority, as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions—if they expected respect for the administration of justice at the hands of the Irish people, or approval of their attitude towards such a man from even the silent Conservatives of the House, His Majesty's Government would not, at least on this occasion, make a purge, which would also, he suggested, have the advantage of preparing the way for some other and more discreet placeman, whom no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind.
MR. FLYNNexpressed his surprise that the representative of the Government had not intervened in the debate and given the House some explanation of the conduct of Mr. O Connor Morris. One of the most serious aspects
1104
of the case was that a large number of cases connected with the very Acts which this learned gentleman condemned came before him for settlement. What confidence, then, could the peasantry of Roscommon or Sligo have in the administration of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887 by such a judge? He thought he was correct in saying that a Motion of this kind was almost unprecedented in the memory of the oldest Parliamentarian in the House. Very few people had any recollection of an occasion when the necessity arose for such an extreme course being taken as to ask this House to form itself into a Committee to consider the conduct of this judge. Probably they were now face to face with the recrudescence of the Coercion Act, and they were threatened with the revival of the proceedings connected with the Crimes Act, and cases under those Acts would come up for trial before such judges as Judge O'Connor Morris. He had been told that this Judge was a near relative of Lord Clanricarde. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "He comes of a good stock."] It was very probable that some hon. Members belonging to the Nationalist party would be brought before this learned judge, who would have to try those people whom he had described as "village ruffians." In the face of such treatment they were asked to have respect for the law and the administration of justice. How could they respect the law with facts like those burned into their minds? He could not understand how the representative of the executive Government in Ireland could sit in that House and not intervene in the debate. The charge was that a judge who did such things was not fit to be entrusted with the administration of justice, and after the light that had been thrown upon his conduct, his writings, and his harangues from the bench, surely they might expect that the executive Government would come forward and promise to support this Motion, even though it came from the Nationalist side of the House. Many hon. Members of this House expressed unbounded astonishment that the Irish people had no respect for the law. They might pass Land Act after Land Act through Parliament, but such Acts would always be strangled by those who administered them. The

1105
Land Act of 1881 was supposed to protect tenants' improvements, but the land judges had whittled that away. By the action of such Judges as Judge O'Connor Morris, the Irish people had lost all consideration for any sense of fair play. He hoped, therefore, that the Attorney General would grant the inquiry which was asked for in the Motion by his hon. friend.
MR. HAYDENsaid he desired to take part in this debate, because Judge O'Connor Morris presided over the quarter sessions in one of the divisions which he represented. Not only did this judge deliver party harangues on the bench, but his conduct and bearing were such as could not be witnessed in any court in the backwoods of America or Australia. On his way to court he complained to both policemen and civilians if a drove of cattle obstructed his passage, and he had threatened to commit the owners, the drivers, and the cattle as well, for contempt of court. This was no laughing matter for the people of Ireland, for this judge had a knack of putting his jokes into practice by sending people to gaol. In the court this judge was in the habit of using language of the most blasphemous character, for he cursed and swore from the bench in a manner that shocked everybody who listened to him. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] It was a very serious matter to have a man like that to administer the law. The mere fact that Judge O'Connor Morris used such language was a justification for the people in the two counties mostly concerned treating the law with the utmost contempt. One of the places in Ireland which was receiving the most attention from the Government now was the portion of the counties of Roscommon and Sligo over which this judge had jurisdiction. Trial by jury there was suspended, and the administration of the law was in the hands of two dependent removable officials, and offenders would come before Judge O'Connor Morris. How could they expect to get justice at the hands of a partisan of this character? The root of the discontent was to be found in the condition of the Land question, and yet Judge O'Connor Morris, every time he appeared in court, proceeded to deliver harangues of the
1106
character which had been read to the House. The only appeal from the paid dependent officials appointed by the Attorney General and his colleagues from imprisonment which they considered was unjust punishment was to the County Court, which was presided over by one of the most extraordinary partisans that ever sat upon the bench in Ireland.
This official was indiscreet enough to show his hand rather more freely and frankly than other officials did as a rule. At the present time there were several appeals going to be tried before this gentleman from the De Freyne and other estates. The whole reason for these trials and prosecutions was agrarian, and as to this official's opinion of the agrarian condition of Ireland, he need not go beyond the extracts which had been read to the House. How could those tenants and others who had been sentenced by removable magistrates expect justice at the hands of a partisan of this character? An hon. Member of this House had an appeal from his sentence of imprisonment awaiting trial before this very gentleman; and two of the most respectable County Councillors in Ireland, Mr. John Fitzgibbon and Mr. Webb, who had been sentenced to four months imprisonment a week or two ago, had to appear before this gentleman, and how could they expect to get impartial justice at his hands? The thing was a mockery, and there was no hope for them. It might be asked, Why did these men choose to go before him? They did so because they wished to exercise whatever little remnant of right was left them. They went before him to put back the evil day and to continue as long as possible the services which they were rendering to the tenants of Ireland. They felt sure that there was not the slightest chance of one single hour being taken off the savage sentences which had been inflicted upon them by a partisan of this description.
Sometimes Irish Members were twitted with not being loyal, and they were asked why they rejoiced on occasions when the enemies of England triumphed on the battlefield. He asked, Where would be the loyalty of the British people to a Government or a Crown that retained in England on the

1107
bench men of this description? Such a thing would be utterly impossible in England, whereas in Ireland it was the order of the day. Could they be loyal to law which was administered by a gentleman of this character who could not be defended by the Attorney General in this House and in whose defence he dared not stand up? They were asked to be loyal while partisans of this character upon the bench inflicted coercion, and, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone had said, starvation, misrule, and misgovernment of every description. He could assure this House that, so far as the people of the western counties of Ireland were concerned, they never would have any respect whatsoever for the administration of the law whilst it was in the hands of such a man. Even good law was perverted by this man's maladministration, and even when he was delivering what he regarded as fair play and justice, he did it in such a manner as to bring upon himself and his court the utmost ridicule and contempt of the people whose respect he ought to command.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was astonished that no member of the Irish Bar, although there were 'several in the House, had risen to answer the attack which had been made upon this learned judge The best thing that could be said of Mr. O'Connor Morris was that he was thoroughly impartial. He went without scruple for His Majesty's Government; indeed, his contempt for the Government knew no bounds. His abuse of the Nationalist Members—well, might he say that it rivalled his own in other days? That was probably the strongest thing that could be said. Mr. O'Connor Morris had also a word for the leaders of the compulsory sale movement, for in one of his volumes he declared that it was well known in Ireland that they had mapped out the estates they were to have for themselves. This gentleman had been appointed by the Crown to administer certain Acts of Parliament. One of these was the Land Act of 1881. He had, if called upon, to decide what was a fair rent for any farmer going into his court to have that decided. Was it reasonable that after a man had denounced the Land Act, for
1108
instance, as pure and unadulterated confiscation of the landlords' property, he should be placed in a position to administer that Act? It was impossible for the people, whatever their creed or politics might be, to expect even-handed justice from such a man. What business had Mr. O'Connor Morris with voluntary or compulsory land purchase? He was a landlord, but that did not give him a title to sit on the bench of justice and utter the language he did in regard to this matter. He was County Court Judge for two counties which were at present in a seriously disturbed state. In the hon. Member's opinion, they were both in a dangerous state of disorder. At last Quarter Sessions Mr. O'Connor Morris was called upon to adjudicate on the claim of Lord De Freyne for rent; his duty was to say whether it was due or not, and to sign the decrees if it was due; but he began from the bench a furious attack on the legislation of this House and on the only legislation which had been successful in Ireland, namely, that dealing with land purchase. He said it was robbery and confiscation. The hon. Member submitted that the Purchase measures which had been passed since 1881 constituted the only way of avoiding both robbery and confiscation. But Mr. O'Connor Morris had nothing to do with the policy of the Acts. He was paid to administer the law, and not to attack it. The fact was he had confiscation and robbery on the brain, and he went about the country talking about nothing else. The men who were paid to administer the law ought to be confined to their duty, and politicians should be allowed to fight out the policy of the measures on the floor of this House. That was what this man absolutely refused to do. He was not only a violent partisan, but he brought polities to the bench every day he sat there. Every man who went into his court was convinced that, so far as agrarian questions were concerned, he would only get as much justice as the judge cared to give him, and that was very little. It was a serious matter that this man should preside over this part of the country in such a crisis as the present.
He was sorry that there was no Cabinet Member present tonight. He thought the Cabinet were interested in this question from another point of view. He thought they might ask themselves whether this man was not putting

1109
a match to the powder in the magazine, and whether such violent harangues from the bench were not doing much to promote discontent and disorder. That was the view winch the hon. Member took so far as the rgrarian question was concerned, and he knew it was the view of thousands of tenant farmers in Ireland. There were judges in Ireland who held Nationalist views in politics, but they confined themselves to the performance of their own duty, and left politics to Parliament and to the people whose duty it was to attend to such matters. He held that it was unfair that this judge should use his position for the propagation of his antiquated ideas on Irish politics, and he protested against it. There was nothing worse in the whole country than that of which Judge Morris was a sample. An Irish Tory was thorough, but when they got an old Liberal made into a Tory, then he was the most pestilential thing in Irish politics. That was exactly what the learned judge was, and he for one protested against this gentleman administering the Land Acts.
MR. ATKINSONsaid he should not follow the example set him by making this the occasion of ventilating his own opinions upon the Land Purchase question, or any other matter not germane to the question before the House; nor did he intend to enter into a biographical sketch of the life of Judge O'Connor Morris; nor should he dissect his opinions, save so far as they touched the subject of the Motion; nor, indeed, should he discuss whether the judge was as severe as his hon. friend said upon the Members of the other side of the House, and, even if he were, he supposed his hon. friend would not think for that reason the judge was beyond redemption. This judge held his appointment, as any judge of a superior court did, under statute, and he could not he removed save by address from the two Houses of Parliament. He thought that, notwithstanding all that had been said of him, he might have some reason to be proud of the course which this discussion has taken. He had appeals from the Crimes Act Court—perhaps that was the reason for this debate. [Nationalist cries of "No, no."] There had been an almost daily spectator of these proceedings, viz., the hon. Member for South Mayo; and he was the man who had thought it wise to urge these appeals.
1110
But Judge O'Connor Morris had been a judge of the country for twenty-five years or more, and there was no desire manifested by hon. Members who have taken part in this debate to spare him; but from the whole of his judicial career no single instance had been adduced either of misconduct or dishonesty in his office.
It was said such a case could not occur in England. [Opposition cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen cheered, but he relied on an English precedent. In one of the greatest cases of this character ever brought to the notice of that House—the case of Lord Justice Abinger in 1843, arising out of language used in reference to Chartist riots—the test to which he had referred was laid down by Lord John Russell and by Sir James Graham. The question was not whether we approved of the judge's language, but whether we thought he had been altogether discreet; not whether we might he of opinion that it would have been better if the judge had rather indulged in his energy of silence, but whether there was primà facie proof that lie had acted in such a way as to justify his removal from the bench for either corruption or misconduct. He would quote from (3) Debates, volume lxvi, at page 1129—
"I agree with the noble Lord in thinking that the due administration of justice is promoted by the exercise of the vigilance of Parliment, and, therefore, I by no means object to questions of this nature being raised in the House; but on the other hand, I feel strongly that it is due to the cause of justice itself to depend the judges of the land, unless we shall be satisfied that their conduct has been corrupt, and their motives dishonest. It is only fair to judge, considering his eminent station, the great power With which he is entrusted, and the responsibility under which he acts, that the House should not adopt such a motion as this unless, in our deliberate judgment, we are satisfied that there has been manifested, on the part of the judge who is the object of it, a badness of heart and a corrupt intention, which have contributed to the perversion of his judgment."
Lord John Russell also spoke in an earlier part of the debate, and, although he highly disapproved of the language of the learned judge, he said—
"He regarded the independence of the judges to be so sacred that nothing but the most imperious necessity should induce the House to adopt a course which might by any means imply that the judges were to depend for the future, not on the sanction of an Act of Parliament, not on that tenure which had protected them so long as they were not guilty of any crime, but on the particular views of a particular portion of their fellow-countrymen."

1111
He would commend to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion the paragraph at page 1090, where Lord Thessinger said—
"If the House sanctioned all the inquiries of this nature that might be suggested, there would be no end to them. In every case that came before a judge there was sure to be one disappointed party, because one party must be unsuccessful, and as every man was prone to think that his case had merits, if this were to be the rule they would have every disappointed suitor coming to the House to complain that his case had been hardly dealt with by the judge who tried it, that the judge was not impartial, that he had not shown equanimity of temper, and that he had not even legal knowledge. To talk of the independence of the judges, if this kind of thing were allowed, would be perfectly ridiculous."
Of all men, the least qualified to give any opinion, either of the justice or the impartiality of the judge, was the criminal who was sent to prison. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] In this same volume it was laid down that there was no justification for an inquiry unless the House was convinced that there had been such misconduct as to compel the House to address the Crown to remove the Judge. Hon. Members had spoken of judges in relation to the Nationalist cause; but had friends of the Nationalist cause no prejudices, no views upon the Land Act and land legislation? Even his hon. friend did not suggest that—
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes; but if were a judge I would hold my tongue.
MR. ATKINSONsaid he believed that would be a wise precaution. But he was not defending Judge O'Connor Morris. [Nationalist cries of "It's a bad job," and "Don't do it again."] He was not to be removed because he had spoken perhaps too freely. What were the charges after his twenty-five years service that hon. Members most anxious to damage him had brought before the House? That he had censured the Act of 1881. But if his hon. friend who had spoken last was to be believed, everybody did that.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Everybody has not to administer the law.
MR. ATKINSON (continuing)said he was afraid that if men were only to be put on the Bench in Ireland who had no opinions on the Land Acts they would have to import foreign
1112
judges. [Nationalist cries of "From Germany."] Judge O'Connor Morris said' that he disapproved of the Land Act of 1881, but was that any reason why Judge O'Connor Morris should deny justice to the individual? Many judges thought that there should be no such law as that for breach of promise of marriage, and thought that it was bad and unwise and led to evils; but he should be very sorry to suggest that when cases of breach of promise were brought before such judges litigants would not obtain justice. The Master of the Rolls, whom he supposed no one would accuse of partiality or injustice, said the other day, when dealing with a bequest to a monkish order—[Nationalist cries of "What?"]—a monastic order, that he bitterly regretted that, owing to a provision in one of the sections of the Catholic Emancipation Act, he was obliged to hold that it was good. But was that any reason why he should not administer justice? It had been said that everything was abnormal in Ireland, and certainly it was abnormal that the hon. Member for South Mayo, who now attacked Judge O'Connor Morris, only the other night quoted Judge O'Connor Morris to belabour the Government. Only the other day, the hon. Member for South Mayo relied strongly on Judge O'Connor Morris, and quoted him as saying that, of the many Governments which had dealt with Ireland, His Majesty's Government was the worst and its policy the most wicked.
The next offence was that Judge O'Connor Morris had approved of the way in which The Times newspaper had behaved towards Mr. Parnell. Was that an offence so grave as to disentitle him altogether to be a judge, and to unfit him for a judicial position? Next he was charged with turning the law of property topsy-turvy. Neither the hon. Member who proposed the Motion nor the hon. Member who seconded it referred to anything but one particular speech of Judge O'Connor Morris. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that one of the things he objected to was that Judge O'Connor Morris had congratulated jurors who had put in an appearance at Court and who had not taken the advice they had received to abstain; and, further, that Judge O'Connor Morris sympathised with Mr. Fenton, the Crown Solicitor.

1113
He was quite free to admit that, in his humble judgment, it would be as well if Judge O'Connor Morris abstained from such expressions of opinion; but at the same time, he said it was trifling with the House of Commons to ask them to dismiss a judge for corruption and misconduct on such grounds. That was not the Motion; but the Motion was the preliminary stage, and the question was whether an inquiry ought or ought not to be permitted, unless a primà facie case had been established. The hon. Member for South Roscommon went altogether outside the complaints of other hon. Members, and said that Judge O'Connor Morris was in the habit of using blasphemous language. That was a serious charge to bring forward against a judge, without a single particle of evidence being adduced to sustain it except the statement of the hon. Gentleman himself. He thought it was unfair to the Judge arid unfair to himself to spring an accusation of that kind without referring to any charge or important speech in which that language had been used.
MR. HAYDENsaid he had heard the language himself. He really could not refer to any authority, because the newspapers of the district, for the sake of decency, refrained from publishing the language. If the right hon. Gentleman desired corroboration, he had only to send a representative to any court over winch Judge O'Connor Morris was to preside, and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would get full and sufficient evidence.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no charge of this kind in the Motion, which is confined to charges of political partiality. The discussion ought not to be extended to a fresh charge altogether.
MR. HAYDENsaid he brought the matter forward merely to show the unfitness of Judge O'Connor Morris for his position.
MR. SPEAKER: That is, I understand, the object of the Motion, but this charge is not included in it.
MR. ATKINSONsaid that probably the best answer to the charge was that
1114
it was not mentioned in the Motion at all; and he could only express Ins amazement that if it could be sustained, it had not been incorporated in the Motion. He submitted they were not laying down rules and canons of judicial taste for Judge O'Connor Morris. They were not called upon to express approval of every word that fell from him. They were there to take, or not to take, what Was recognised as the initial step in proceedings for the removal of a judge, and that step ought not to be take nunless a primà facie case, showing that the judge ought to be removed, had been made out, After Judge O'Connor Morris had been twenty-five years on the Bench, those charges were now made against him for the first time. Never before had the attention of Parliament been once called to the action of the learned Judge, and he submitted that the charges were supported only by allegations.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid he should not have intervened in the debate were it not for one expression used by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that bringing forward the Motion was trifling with the House of Commons. He thought that was a most uncalled for observation. On the contrary, whatever decision the House might arrive at, the discussion which had arisen would prove very beneficial to the country. The reference to the case of Lord Abinger also showed that the right hon. Gentleman felt very much embarrassed as to what line of defence to take; because it would be absurd to say that the House of Commons would never pass a Motion of that kind except on the two grounds specified in the speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. There had been cases of removing judges for incapacity, excessive old age, and other causes; and the question the House had to decide now was whether a case had been made out for inquiry.
He confessed to considerable embarrassment in dealing with the Motion. One reason was that he had known Judge O'Connor Morris for a great number of years, and he would say, in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, that undoubtedly Judge O'Connor Morris was a man of unimpeachable honour

1115
and great literary ability. He started with that premiss, and he did not think that a word could be said against the honour of Judge O'Connor Morris although he had been betrayed into a false position. While saying that, however, he wished to remind the House of the peculiar position occupied by a County Court Judge in Ireland. He was Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, before whom all criminal and licensing cases triable at Quarter Sessions came, and also the judge, before whom all civil suits up to a limit of.£50 were tried. He was in fact the president of the poor man's court, and if there was an institution in Ireland which it was most important should be placed beyond the reach of suspicion it was the office of County Court Judge. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, a County Court Judge was not removable except on the Motion of both Houses of Parliament, and in that respect he was different from a removable magistrate. It should also be remembered that all appeals between landlord and tenant in the County Court came before him; and that all valuations and the fixing of rents were determined by him if the parties chose to go before him instead of before the Land Commission. He administered the Land Act of 1870, the Land Act of 1881, and the various amending Acts; and he also fixed the compensation to be paid to an evicted tenant for improvements. In fact, it was much more important that the County Court Bench in Ireland should be preserved from the suspicion of partiality than even the highest court in the land.
Under those circumstances, what extenuation did the Attorney General put forward for the course pursued by Judge O'Connor Morris? In the first place the learned Judge had published a variety of works, and if he had rested there the Motion might never have been heard of. In those publications he denounced the policy of successive Governments with reference to land legislation. He himself thought that a judge who had to deter-
1116
mine cases arising out of the construction of the Land Acts, if he had entertained those opinions, ought not to give expression to them until he had retired from the Bench. But Judge O'Connor Morris was not satisfied merely with publishing those philippics against the whole policy of successive Governments, but when charging juries in particular cases he indulged in tirades against the policy started by one Government and amended by another Government, and he proceeded to attack the present administration for having improved the Land Purchase Acts so as to enable the Dillon Estate to be purchased. The duty of the learned Judge was merely to preside as Chairman at Quarter Sessions, to take up the Bills of Indictment against the prisoners who were returned for trial, and to make such observations to the Grand Jury as would guide them in returning true Bills or not. Instead of doing that, he attacked the County Council of Sligo because they had dismissed their solicitor. What had the County Court Judge to say to the conduct of a wholly independent body whose office was as important and as eminent as his own, and from the seat of justice where no one could interpose without being guilty of contempt; to attack them for the exercise of an undoubted right. But he was not satisfied with that, because he went on to refer to some alleged instructions which were given to jurors to absent themselves from court. It turned out that no such instructions had ever been given, and he congratulated the jurors on their attendance and for disregarding a warning which had never existed. Having done that, he then proceeded to attack the whole system of land purchase. He complained of the present Government as having encouraged a combination among the tenants against the payment of rent, by the sale of the Dillon estate to the tenants by the Congested Districts Board, and he pointed out that the whole system of law, as established in

1117
Ireland, by the wisdom of statesmen and of successive Parliaments, was nothing but a system of robbery and confiscation. He saw on both sides of the House many hon. Members who occupied the position of chairmen at Quarter Sessions. They knew the duties cast on them by the law and the limits of those duties. Would they think of indulging in such philippics on questions of public interest not immediately concerning the business they had to discharge? Could it be said then when the attention of this House was called to those observations that it was merely trifling with the House? On the contrary, he thought that the House was indebted to the hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion.
For his part, speaking with considerable experience, he highly deprecated the practice—a practice that too largely prevailed in Ireland, not only on the County Court Bench but on higher Benches—when charging Grand Juries to embark on political dissertations which were completely outside the province of a judge, whose duty was in the language of the old maxim "not to make the law, but to pronounce the law." He was sure that Judge O'Connor Morris would regret very much that he was betrayed into a false position, and if it were only on one occasion, and if it were not that the charges were merely the echo of what he had been publishing year after year, in the very able, but, in his opinion, fallacious books to which the judge had put his name, there might have been something in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that it was unreasonable to ask the House to criticise one single charge. But they had had the judge indicating that he was in such a state of mind as to make it almost impossible for him to adminster justice fairly between landlord and tenant. What a mockery and a farce it was to suppose that a man who was tried before two removables under the Crimes Act, and had no appeal except to the
1118
County Court judge, would expect to get fair play and justice. There was no tribunal of appeal on matters of fact under the Crimes Act, except to the Quarter Sessions, and at a time when there were rumours in the air that the whole of Ireland was going to be ramified, as it were, with those arbitrary and un-constitutional courts, was it to go forth that any judge entertaining the views entertained by Judge O'Connor Morris as to the agrarian condition to Ireland, was a judge to whom an unfortunate prisoner condemned by removables could appeal for justice?
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that with regard to the terms of the Motion, he should like to draw the attention of the House to the value of the debate. It opened with less general charges against the conduct and language of the judge in his books, pamphlets, and speeches, and it closed with a speech from a distinguished ex-County Court judge who bore testimony to the unblemished honour and perfect justice of his late colleague, Judge O'Connor Morris. He thought the habit of judges in Ireland enlarging on all sorts of subjects on the Bench was much to be regretted, but as long as Ireland was Ireland, as long as Irishmen were Irishmen, and the judges on the Bench were Irishmen, he was afraid they would have to put up with that state of affairs. He had himself often listened to the right hon. Gentleman giving on the Bench intellectual treats on all sorts of subjects.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid his memory did not agree with that of his hon. and gallant friend. He knew his hon. and gallant friend often sat beside him on the Bench, but he also knew that he himself had always made it his study and business to confine his observations to the Grand Jury to the bills of indictment with which he had to deal.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid of course his right hon. friend's observations were always germane; but his memory was, perhaps, likely to be keener in the matter than that of his right hon. friend, because these were incidents in his out-of-Ireland life to which he was not accustomed. He thought the debate on the whole was extremely valuable. The object of bringing forward the Motion was patent to all who knew Ireland; but again he would
draw attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, himself a distinguished member of the Irish bar, a colleague and friend of Judge O'Connor Morris had borne testimony to his unblemished honour and justice.
(11.56.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 196. (Division List No. 74.)

AYES.

Abrahm, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayne, Rt, Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Shee, James John

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Healy. Timothy Michael

Ambrose, Robert

Holland, William Henry

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Partington, Oswald

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bell, Richard

Joyce, Michael

Priestley, Arthur

Blake, Edward

Boland, John

Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea Russell

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Kennedy, Patrick James

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Burns, John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Roche, John

Runciman, Walter

Caine, William Sproston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Russell, T.W.

Caldwell, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Campell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lolyd-George, David

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Lundon, W.

Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

Causton, Richard Knight

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Craig, Robert Hunter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer, Rt. HnC. R.(Northants

Crean, Eugene

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

M'Crae, George

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

M'Kean, John

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Delany, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Dillon, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Doogan, P. C.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomkinson, James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mooney, John J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, J. Hastings

Murphy, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Edwards, Frank

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Elibank, Master of

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Farrell, James Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Ffrench, Peter

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Young, Samuel

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Gilhooly, James

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

O'Dowd, John

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Malley, William

Harwood, George

O'Mara, James

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Forster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fuller, J. M. F.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Galloway. William Johnson

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Arrol, Sir William

Gardner. Ernest

Norgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Garfit, William

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morrell, George Herbert

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Morrison, James Archibald

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford)

Baird, John George Alexander

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Balcarres, Lord

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute)

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

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Green, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Banbury, Frederick George

Greville, Hon. Roland

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Groves, James Grimble

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Bignold, Arthur

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bond, Edward

Hambro, Charles Eric

Bousfield, William Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Butcher, John George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Pierpoint, Robert

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Plummer, Walter R.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Purvis, Robert

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Helder, Augustus

Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

Higginbottom, S.W.

Randles, John S.

Chamberlain, J.Austen (Worc'r

Hogg, Lindsay

Rateliff, R.F.

Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chapman, Edward

Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

Remnant, James Farquharson

Charrington, Spencer

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Renwick, George

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Robinson, Brooke

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kenyon, James (Lanes, Bury)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Keswick, William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Cust, Henry John C.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Lawson, John Grant

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Davenport, William Bromley

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Denny, Colonel

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Rebfrew)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Smith, H. C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside

Doughty, George

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somrerest)

Duke, Henry Edward

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Macarney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Macdona, John Cumming

Stroyan, John

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Finch, George H.

Majendie, James A. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Manners, Lord Cecil

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fisher, William Hayes

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Thorton, Percy M.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Tollemache, Henry James

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Flower, Ernest

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

Tuke, Sir John Batty

1122

1123

Valentia, Viscount

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wylie, Alexander

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Webb, Colonel William George

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

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

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. BLAKE (Longford, S.) in the Chair.]

1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1901 and 1902, the sum of £5,512,396 2s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidation Fund of the United Kingdom.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, the sum of £68,181,600 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday, Committee to sit again tomorrow.

SAVINGS BANKS FUNDS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the general condition of both Savings Banks Funds in respect of their capital and income accounts, and the authorised investments thereof, with special reference to the loss of income which will be incurred by the reduction of the rate of interest in Consols in 1903; and to report whether any administrative reforms are
1124
required in either class of Savings Banks.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

NEW LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.

  ORDER FOR SECOND READING READ.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the Attorney General could state the views of Judge O'Connor Morris on the Bill?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir. I think it is the only subject on which he has not expressed an opinion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman object to the Second Reading?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Objection has been taken in other quarters.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

  South African War—Recent News from the Front.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment,
  MR. O'MARAasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say whether there was any further news from South Africa.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; not that I know of.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

The Earl of WILTON sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; and read 1a.
  SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  RUSTHALL MANOR BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Camperdown be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Elgin; the Earl of Camper down to be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
  WREXHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Camperdown be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Elgin; the Earl of Camper-down to be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
  ROSSENDALE VALLEY TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  CENTRAL ARGENTINE AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3.a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  WADHURST GAS BILL,
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  HAMILTON GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TREATY SERIES.
  No. 4. (1902). Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of Brazil, relative to the boundary between Brazil and British Guiana. Signed at London, 6th November, 1901. [Ratifications exchanged at Rio de Janeiro, 28th January, 1902.]
  No. 5. (1902). Convention between the United Kingdom and Persia, extending the system of telegraphic communication between Europe and India through Persia. Signed at Teheran, 16th August, 1901. [Ratifications exchanged at Teheran, 13th January, 1902.]
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

  UNDERGROUND RAILWAY BILLS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the injury to houses and property in London which may arise if the Bills for underground railways, now before the House, should become law, and to move the Resolution standing in my name. I feel that I need make no apology for bringing forward this matter, because there are, at the present time, about twenty Bills for underground railways before your Lordships for consideration, and any question which affects their legal status or any other important matter of that kind is, I think, one which your Lordships will be perfectly ready to consider. Perhaps I

  987
  ought to say at the outset that I am not actuated in any way by any dislike to, or suspicion of, these undertakings. I fully recognise them as a means of locomotion, now becoming more and more frequent, and I readily admit that in future they may perhaps assist in the solution of two or three very awkward questions, such as overcrowding, which are more and more occupying the attention of Parliament. Perhaps I ought to say, further, that I am free from any personal interest in the matter. None of these companies whose Bills are now before Parliament, so far as I am aware, come anywhere near the house which I inhabit, and even if it were otherwise, the arguments and the merits of the ease remain exactly the same.
  While I recognise the importance of these underground railways, I cannot be blind, and I think your Lordships will not be blind, to the fact that there are also to be considered the individuals under whose houses and property these railways propose to pass. That it is possible that damage may be done by these railways is a matter on which, I think, we must all agree. Indeed, we have the notable instance of the Central London Railway, with regard to which it has been necessary for the Board of Trade to appoint a Committee to consider vibration and one or two other questions of damage alleged to have been caused by this railway.
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to inform you what the law at present is with regard to corporations which have received statutory powers. Not being learned in the law, I feel very great diffidence in speaking on matters of this sort; but it is generally accepted that the law is as laid down by Lord Blackburn in the case of Geddes v. The Ban Reservoir. In his judgment Lord Blackburn said—
  "It is now thoroughly established that no action will lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised, if it be done without negligence, even although it does occasion damage to anyone. But an action does lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised, if it be done negligently."
  Accepting that as the law, corporations which have received statutory powers are free from liability under the common law, so long as they are not chargeable with negligence. By way of illustration, I will point out to your Lordships how this has worked in the case of ordinary
  988
  railways. Railways above ground are not liable in the event of sparks from their engines burning crops or setting fire to a stackyard, or doing any other damage of that sort, unless it can be shown that in the construction of their engines some precaution or some improvement had been neglected. Great exception has been taken to the law as at present laid down, and, as most of your Lordships know, there have been Bills introduced in the other House of Parliament on the subject. A Bill was introduced last session, the object of which was to make railways liable for damage of that sort, just as, much as a travelling traction engine or any private person would be. When you pass from ordinary railways and come to underground railways, it is quite clear that the risk of damage—of serious damage—to property becomes very much greater. These lines must necessarily run under houses or near to houses, and under streets and other crowded places. Therefore, it can hardly be contested that the risk of damage is very much greater than in the case of ordinary railways.
  As to the Central London Railway, we find that there have been many complaints of damage, and I believe it is admitted by the Committee in their Report that the serious vibration has caused very great inconvenience to many persons living along the line of route. The Committee, in what I believe is a preliminary Report, have suggested certain measures for obviating this inconvenience to a considerable extent. They say—
  "So far as the Central London Railway is concerned, we are confident that by adopting motor ears in the place of the original locomotives, the vibration produced can be reduced so as to cause no serious annoyance, though it is possible that the sound of the trains may still be detected, especially in the night."
  If the Committee are right in their expectations, that damage will have been remedied; but supposing, for the sake of argument, that their expectations are not realised, what happens? The persons who suffer will have no remedy. They will be compelled to make the best of it. It may be said that these persons might have opposed the Railway Bill in Parliament. But I do not think that any Committee would be prepared, nor would it be desirable, to throw out a Bill simply because certain persons came and alleged that if the Bill were passed the railway might be so constructed and worked as to

  989
  cause them damage hereafter. Damage occasioned by the working of a railway—I draw a distinction between working and construction—cannot be proved before it is done. Therefore, to argue against the construction of a railway because at some future period it might do damage, would be taking up an untenable position. The distinction between construction and operation is important, because I understand that while a railway is being constructed the persons whose property is affected by anything done in the course of the construction have their remedy at common law. But after the railway is actually in operation, the person whose property is damaged has no remedy whatever.
  I would put it, your Lordships—Did Parliament thoroughly realise, when it passed these Acts, that it was not only giving to the companies or public bodies the privileges for which they were asking, but was creating a corporation which was not amenable to the ordinary common law for the damage it might do? Even supposing Parliament did foresee this damage, is it quite fair that, if damage is caused by a public improvement, the whole cost of that damage should be thrown, not on the public, but on the individuals whose houses by bad luck had been constructed on the line which a particular underground railway had taken? I would ask your Lordships what special reason exists as a general rule for exempting underground railways from liability for any damage which they may do? I have never read the terms of one of these Bills, but I understand that underground railway companies apply, not to take property—they are not obliged to purchase property—but for an easement, for which they pay nothing at all it is at a certain depth. That is a very considerable privilege as compared with railways above ground. It may be urged that if we did not concede this privilege to underground railway companies these railways would not be made at all. That means, then, that the companies come to Parliament and explicitly request permission to secure an advantage at the cost of private individuals. That is my statement with regard to the law as it at present stands.
  I will now say a word or two with regard to the Resolution which I am asking the House to adopt. What I am anxious that your Lordships should
  990
  do is to affirm the principle that if underground railway companies do damage they shall he liable at common law, as any other private persons would be, or as they themselves would be if they were taking their privileges by means of agreement. I indicate in my Motion, in general terms, the way in which your Lordships might affect that purpose. So far as an instruction to the Select Committees is concerned, I well know that your Lordships object, and very rightly object, to interfere with the liberty of Select Committees by giving to them a positive instruction; but if your Lordships arrive at the conclusion that it is desirable to accept the principle of the Resolution, it would then be open to consider the means by which the Resolution could be carried into practical effect. It seems to me advisable, if your Lordships decide that this matter ought to be dealt with in this House, that it should be done by means of a general rule. It would be obviously inconvenient if one Committee dealt with one underground railway company in one way and another Committee in another way. There is a very pertinent precedent for the Motion which I propose in the Gas Works Clauses Acts. The Act of 1871 contains the following provision—
  "Nothing in this Act or the Special Act shall exonerate the undertakers from any indictment, action, or other proceeding for nuisance in the event of any nuisance being caused by them."
  That seems to me perfectly fair. If a gas company obtains powers from Parliament and sets up gas works, what is more reasonable than that they should not thereby obtain power to annoy their neighbours? Parliament in this case inserted this clause to specially prevent anything of that kind happening. That is my case, and I place it before your Lordships for your consideration. Of course, railway companies say that all that they do is for the public advantage, but it is also for their own private advantage that they work. I beg to move.
  Moved, "To resolve that it is desirable, whether by instruction to the Select Committees on these Bills or otherwise, to provide that the liability of railway companies at Common Law for damage to houses and property in London which may arise if the Bills for underground

  991
  railways now before the House should become law, shall not be impaired by the passing of any such Act."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (the Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, I think the House will agree with the noble Earl that the subject which he has introduced this afternoon is one of considerable interest and importance. The system of tubular railways, both in this country and abroad, is in the experimental stage, and it is not in the least unreasonable to hope that before long considerable improvements may be effected in them. There is no doubt, as far as the railways in London are concerned, that errors have been committed, both in regard to their construction and their working, which would be avoided if they had to be constructed over again; but, at the same time, I think that the results which have already been obtained on these railways are such as to justify us in forming considerable hopes as to their success in the future. Although there are only three railways of this type now in London, I understand that during 1901 no less than 60,000,000 passengers were carried upon them. The importance of those figures is apparent when we recognise that, as my noble friend reminded the House, at the present time the two most pressing problems in London are, first, the ever-increasing congestion of the street traffic, and, secondly, the provision of cheap and healthy homes for the masses of the working men who seek employment within the Metropolitan area. I agree with my noble friend that if, instead of having these isolated railways, we were to have a perfected system, providing cheap and easy transit from one end of London to the other, and to suburban areas, we might hope to have advanced no inconsiderable step towards the solution of the difficult problems that lie in front of us. But, my Lords, promising as these railways no doubt are in this respect, and great as are the advantages which they may have brought to many citizens of London, I think there is no use disguising the fact that, up to the present, at any rate, the development of the system has also brought with it considerable disadvantages. There is no doubt that the vibration which has been caused, at any
  992
  rate by the Central London Railway, has proved a great inconvenience and annoyance to many innocent people who find themselves living on the line of route. I have no doubt that this vibration has also considerably decreased the value of the property affected by it. As to how far it is possible for those people to obtain a remedy at law by action against the railway company, or how far it is possible for individuals, whose land is not actually taken for the purposes of a railway, to appear as objectors before a Committee, I will not express an opinion. It is a point with which my noble friend the Chairman of Committees will no doubt deal later on. Nor will I attempt to say, supposing these railways turn out to be a great boon to the inhabitants of London, how far the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number can justifiably be applied to this question. I think it is quite possible that certain cases of hardship may have to be recognised in the interests of the community of London as a whole. But however that may be, I agree with my noble friend that it is plainly most desirable that the disadvantages of this system should be minimised as far as possible, and that in sanctioning other undertakings of this kind we should endeavour to ensure that a system which brought advantages to some should not be made a means of considerable inconvenience and disadvantage to others.
  So far as the Motion of my noble friend has that object in view, I think the House will probably be inclined to give it a considerable measure of sympathy and support. But when we come to the method by which my noble friend proposes to carry out that object, we come, I think, to a totally different matter. What does my noble friend suggest? He suggests that the Common Law liability upon a railway company for damages caused by the working of a railway should not be affected by the empowering Act sanctioned by Parliament. As far as I know, the method proposed by my noble friend would introduce a perfectly novel and unprecedented principle, as far, at any rate, as railway legislation is concerned. As to the precedent of a gas company, quoted by the noble Earl, I would point out that the capital involved in that case

  993
  is entirely different from the amount involved in the formation of a railway, and in the latter case the promoters would have to be far more careful of the liability which they took upon their shoulders than the promoters of a gas company. There is a further point that I think is important. What is the principle upon which railway legislation proceeds? It is the principle of defining the public duties which the promoters have to undertake, and, at the same time, of specifying equally clearly the public liability to which they may be subjected. Surely that is the whole difference between proceeding by Bill and proceeding by agreement. The whole object of promoters in coming to Parliament is to enable them to obtain Parliamentary sanction to carry out certain enterprises under certain definite obligations and liabilities. If, however, promoters are no longer to have their liabilities defined, and if a company is always to be made subject to an action for damage done to private property while carrying out enterprises sanctioned by the empowering Act, I think it is not too much to say that those enterprises would not be carried out at all. Under such conditions I believe that every one of the Bills now awaiting a hearing at your Lordships' hands would be withdrawn. I do not believe that any company could be floated under those circumstances. I do not believe that any promoters would find it possible to obtain the capital necessary for their undertaking if they knew that liabilities of that kind were to be, imposed upon them. My noble friend's remedy, therefore, would be worse than the disease. While undoubtedly we should aim at minimising the disadvantages which have been pointed out by my noble friend, I think it would be nothing less than disastrous to strangle all those enterprises in their very inception. Unless the privilege granted by Parliament defines the extent of the liability which will lie on the companies there is very little real privilege about it.
  What, then, can be done? As I have ventured to criticise the method proposed by my noble friend, it may be asked what alternative proposal I have to make. I believe that a much more practical and a sounder plan lies open to us. As the House may know, the Committee presided over by Lord Rayleigh, which was appointed last year to consider this very question, has now reported, and its
  994
  report is of a most interesting character. It sets forth clearly, and in a very interesting way, many experiments that have been made with regard to vibration, and the conclusion arrived at is that the vibration is to a great extent, in fact almost entirely, caused by the great weight of the locomotives, and the Committee are of opinion that if that weight could be more distributed throughout the train the vibration would be reduced to an infinitesimal quantity. I believe this has been proved to be the case in other countries. In America they have adopted the multiple unit system, by which the weight and power are distributed throughout the whole length of the train, a motor being fixed to a succession of carriages. The Committee also made certain recommendations in regard to the permanent way, and were distinctly of opinion that if their recommendations were carried out the vibration which has been complained of would be reduced to an infinitesimal quantity. To quote their own words—
  "We are confident that by adopting motor cars in place of the original locomotives the vibration could be reduced so as to cause no serious annoyance."
  If that is so—and I see no reason why we should doubt the opinion of these able and expert gentlemen—then it seems that the whole point of my noble friend could be very easily met by adopting the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. The only difficulty, I believe, is in regard to embodying those recommendations in clauses. I understand that recommendations of that character are not easily embodied in definite clauses which could be introduced into all these Bills. Even if it could be done, however, it does not at all follow that it would be wise to insist upon such clauses, for it may have the effect of stereotyping too much these particular recommendations. At the present time they may be perfectly applicable to the circumstances of the case, but as time goes on is it not possible that new improvements may be discovered which will put an end to the need of recommendations of this character? It seems to me, therefore, that the inflexibility of clauses of that kind may be more of a hindrance than help to these enterprises.
  To get over the difficulty, I would suggest that the whole matter should be left to the expert staff of the Board of

  995
  Trade. At present, as the House knows, before any railway is opened, officers of the Board of Trade have to inspect it, and to certify that it is safe. Surely an enlargement of those powers could very easily be effected, by which the plans of these railways could he submitted to the Board of Trade immediately after their sanction by Parliament. If the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee are followed, I cannot see any reason why the Board of Trade should not be perfectly able to adjudicate fairly, in the general interest, in this matter. In this way we should have the advantage of being able to modify our recommendation according to the circumstances of the time, and as improvements and perfections are adopted with regard to these railways, so, automatically, the instruction given to the promoters could be modified also. It seems to me that it is only by an administrative extension of that kind that you will be able, without friction and without great difficulty, to obtain the results my noble friend desires without strangling an enterprise which may very easily turn out to be of enormous good to the inhabitants of London, and which may, as I say, provide a solution for many of the very difficult questions we have now to consider. I hope that, having raised this question and secured a discussion upon it, my noble friend will not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I shall only trouble the House with a very few observations after the interesting speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl. Though I by no means object to this additional reference to the Board of Trade, giving them full powers to act as they think best in the interests of the public, I cannot admit the force of my noble friend's argument that Committees should not at the present moment enforce the observance of the recommendations made by the Vibration Committee upon the proposed tube railways. We have only to deal with the present, and, as principles are laid down by the Vibration Committee, and suggestions made by them by which vibration can be avoided or largely diminished, I cannot see why the Committee before whom the Bills will go should not at once insist upon these regulations being
  996
  adopted. If they are adopted, of course the railway company will not be liable, but the injury arising from vibration would be, it is hoped, reduced to a minimum; but if they are not adopted, or supposing some new regulation is found to be desirable and the company do not adopt it, then they will be liable at Common Law for negligence in working the railway. The difficulty is not as to damages caused by construction—there can be no question about the law as to that, for whether land is or is not taken the owner mny claim compensation for damages caused by construction—but as to damages caused by the working of the railway. I believe the law to be that the owner of land that is taken can recover under the Land Clauses Act if he can show that he is "injuriously affected" either by construction or by the working of the railway, but that the owner of the land which is not taken cannot recover for damages caused by the working only unless he can show negligence. I think the question may, therefore, he narrowed down to the point as to whether the whole existing law should be altered because persons whose land is not taken for the purposes of one of these railways cannot recover unless it can be shown that there is negligence in the working of the undertaking. I believe it would be a great mistake to alter the whole law upon that consideration. I would also point out that it would be absolutely unfair to alter the law as regards these tube railways, and not to alter it as regards the Metropolitan and other underground railways. The noble Lord asks that Private Bill Committees should he tied down by special instructions, but I venture to suggest that the proper course is to leave full discretion to these Committees to deal with each case upon it merits. If they find, for instance, that there is a large public building, or a large block of private buildings, which they think may be injuriously affected by the working of the line, then they can insist upon the insertion of a clause protecting those buildings against structural injury by the construction or working of the line. That was done in the case of the St. James's Hall, in connection with the Brompton-Piccadilly line, which is about to be constructed.

  997
  A special clause was inserted providing that the company should make good all loss sustained through any structural injury to the premixes by the construction or working of the railway. And somewhat similar clause was inserted in the Metropolitan Inner Circle Act 1874, but confined to damage done during the first three years of the working of the line. The proper solution of the question, I think, is to leave it to the Committee, who will have the full evidence before them and be in a position to judge whether a clause of this kind is necessary or not. But to alter the law for the single case of persons whose land is not taken, and who therefore cannot recover damages for injury, is asking what I think your Lordships will not he prepared to grant.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I understand that all that my noble friend who called attention to this subject asks is that, in a new undertaking, of which no one can sec the effect, the law should so far be modified as to give those who may suffer a remedy which they would not otherwise possess. The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, said that this would be unfair as against the Metropolitan railway. I would point out that nobody can say what the effects of the construction of these new railways will be, or what legislation in relation to them may be necessary. The position is totally different from that of railways of which the effect is well known. It is not sufficient to argue that restrictions may check enterprise when the effects cannot he foreseen. It seems to me a curious argument that an enactment of this kind would probably strangle every one of these schemes. What does that mean? It means that the promoters anticipate this very danger. We have not sufficient experience to lay down any special method or enactment to meet the difficulties that arise, but I think there should he some method of dealing with cases of all kinds where new forces, of which we know little, are brought into play, and legislation should be framed to protect those who may suffer from them and to afford reparation for the damage they may sustain.
  L0RD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, I think the noble Earl who spoke on
  998
  behalf of the Government hardly did justice to the Motion before the House. He seemed to think that there was something in the Motion which was antagonistic to the Report of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. As far as I understand the Motion of the noble Earl, it is in favour of carrying into practical effect the recommendations of that Committee. Lord Rayleigh's Committee reported that if certain things were done no serious damage or annoyance would arise. I do not know the difference between a nuisance and a serious annoyance. Nothing is a nuisance at law which is not a serious annoyance. If annoyance and injury can be avoided by the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee, I do not see why promoters coming to Parliament for exceptional powers should not be put under obligations to carry out those recommendations.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I think the House is indebted to my noble friend opposite for having started this discussion. The noble Earl has stated his case with moderation and yet with great force. Of my noble friend's statement of the law I have no complaint to make. But what does he wish to do? He desires to completely alter the present state of the law in relation to railways, and to place the tube railways, as they are commonly called, under a different law from ordinary railways. But I venture to suggest, in the first place, that it is not desirable to restrain the discretion of Committees on Bills by a cut and-dried instruction such as my noble friend has proposed to the House tonight. The noble Earl would place promoters in exactly the same position as that of persons without any Act of Parliament at all. It is all very well to say that will not stop enterprise, but I think you will find it will; and probably no railway would have been constructed if some mitigation of the Common Law had not been allowed. My noble friend is perfectly right when he says that action can now lie taken in respect of damage done during the construction of a railway; but if you subject a railway company to liability for action for all future time for all annoyance, however small, that will be imposing a burden too heavy to be borne. I agree that it is most desirable that the Commit-

  999
  tee should have full and perfect discretion in dealing with each case when it comes before them, and that was the view taken by the Joint Committee last year. As to injury due to subsidence, that Committee thought each case should be judged according to the circumstances before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred; and, as to vibration, they recommended the insertion of a clause in every Bill to give effect to the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. No doubt the Board of Trade would have considerable difficulty in embodying the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee in an Act, and I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Dudley that it is not desirable to lay down an absolutely fixed rule; but I do think it is very desirable to introduce into every Bill such clauses as the Board of Trade may suggest to minimise, or, it is to be hoped, render impossible, the evil against which my noble friend is anxious to guard. I have had communications with the Board of Trade on this subject, and I believe they are considering with very great care the form of a clause which would be applicable. I strongly deprecate the adoption of my noble friend's suggestion that the law in relation to railways should be altered. I am as anxious as he is to make the annoyance and possible damage to private property as small as possible, and I assure your Lordships that I shall be only too glad to co-operate with the Board of Trade in suggesting to the Committees to which the Bills are referred clauses which will meet the views of my noble friend. I think I have said enough to show your Lordships that it would be a matter of considerable danger, if you wish any of these schemes to be carried into operation, to adopt the form of my noble friend's Motion.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Before the Question is put, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say just a few words in reply. I am afraid I have not derived much consolation from the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Board of Trade. As I understand, the course he advises Parliament to take is to hand over this Question to the Board of Trade, to be dealt with according to the lights of that body, with the help of the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. Though I have every respect for the Board of Trade,
  1000
  my confidence does not equal that expressed by the noble Earl who represents that august body. It seems to, me that this question of damage to owners is one with which Parliament should deal, and should not be delegated to any other body, however eminent. My noble friend seemed rather to have mixed up two questions. The greater part of his speech referred to the Central London Railway land the Vibration Inquiry; but the point I wish to raise is—when damage is done by a railway company or any other body to some private interest, is it fair or right that the fact of having obtained an Act of Parliament should rescue that company or body from all consequences and liabilities under the Common Law? What the noble Lord said on behalf of the Board of Trade does not reach the point. Supposing the clause is inserted and proves ineffectual, and the damage is still done, then the individual will have to bear the loss sustained by the carrying out of a public improvement. The noble Earl who has just spoken said that without exemption from the ordinary law railways will not be made. That is a matter of opinion, but under their present rights railways have been made. It does not appear to me that Lord Knutsford's argument against putting the new railways in a different position from the existing ones is to the point. If wrong has been done hitherto, that is no reason why wrong should continue to be done. I still feel that it is very hard on those, people underneath or near whose houses these railways pass that their property should be not taken, but depreciated in value. Let anyone whose house is in such a position try to sell it, and see whether the value of that house is affected or not. The question is, Who shall pay for that depreciation? I will not ask your Lordships to divide on this Motion. I am going to satisfy myself for the present with having brought it before the House. We are all agreed, I think, that this question of damage is a real and very important one. The whole subject of the construction of tubular railways is at present only in an experimental stage; and at some future time serious attempts must be made to minimise, at all events, and if possible entirely to prevent, loss to private individuals from the construction of lines which are for the public benefit. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.