Sitting of 28 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed.
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL. [BY ORDER.]
  Read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8.) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10.) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11.) BILL,
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1.) BILL,
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL,
  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Southampton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From South-wick-on-Wear; Bramley; and Mirfield; to lie upon the Table.
  IMMORAL TRAFFIC (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Gravesend (two); Gateshead; Sheffield; and Portsmouth (two); to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petitions in favour of the direct representation of Urban District Councils upon the proposed Water Board: From Twick enham; and Heston and Iseworth; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From Windsor; Vauxhall; Whitwick; and Liverpool; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petition from Croydon, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Rye and South Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CENSUS OF IRELAND, 1901.
  Copy presented, of Census of Ireland, Part 1, Vol. III., Province of Lister (County of Armagh) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UGANDA RAILWAY ACTS, 1896 AND 1900
  Account presented, showing the money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Uganda Railway Acts, 1896 (59 and 60 Vic, c. 38) and 1900 (63 and 64 Vic, c. 11), and of the: money expended and borrowed, and securities created, under the said Act, to 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. 193.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2,806 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COMMONS
  Mr. Crombie, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Loyd, Mr. Roche, and Mr. Freeman-Thomas nominated members of the

  775
  Select Committee on Commons, with five members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Proposed Smallpox Hospital at Hanworth.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet received the report of the two officers of the Department he instructed to visit the site of the proposed smallpox hospital at Hanworth, Middlesex; and whether he is now prepared to take steps to prevent the danger to London which its erection above the intakes of three of the water companies may cause.
    (Answer.) Two officers of the Department have visited the site of the hospital referred to, and have made a report to me on the subject. I understand that there is no fear of pollution of the sources of supply of the water companies, provided that the cesspools on the site are emptied regularly and their contents are not allowed to overflow or soak away into the soil. I may add that, as I am advised, there is no scientific evidence to prove that smallpox infection can be conveyed by water, though, no doubt, any such risk should, if possible, be avoided.—(Loral Government Board.)

    Education Bill—Effect on Endowments.
    MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state what would be the effect of the Education Bill upon an endowment which is sufficient, together with the Government grants, for the maintenance of a school in a borough of under 10,000 inhabitants; to what purpose would the endowment be diverted; and would the borough be liable for its share of the expense incurred by the proposed local education authority for educational purposes.
    (Answer.) This is a pure question of law, on which the Board of Education cannot undertake to give advice.—(Board of Education.)

    Scottish Continuation Classes.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the sum of £95,000 appears in this year's Estimates for continuation classes in the Vote for public education in Scotland, will he say how much of this sum will be expended in the Highland crofting counties.
    (Answer.) It is impossible to say what amount, out of the total assigned to continuation classes in the Estimates for the current financial year, will be expended on schools in any specified counties until the claims have been received, and the grants calculated thereon. The claims are to be made up for the year ending 31st July, 1902.—(Scottish Office.)

    Government Dockyard Contracts—Fair Wage, &c.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a recognised standard rate of fair wage and limit of hours of work stipulated by the Government are to be accorded to those engaged as carmen and draymen by the Government contractors; and, if so, will ho state the conditions.
    (Answer.) All contracts for the supply of teams and drivers on hire to His Majesty's dockyards contain the usual stipulation that the wages paid in the execution of the contract shall be those current for such work in the district concerned. They also provide that the hours worked shall be the ordinary dockyard hours, with extra payment for any overtime. It is not proposed to insert any fresh conditions as to wages and limit of hours of work in these contracts, as the stipulations already mentioned are considered to meet these points satisfactorily.—(Admiralty.)

    China Operations, 1901—Medals and Gratuities for Naval Force.
    MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state when it is intended to issue medals to the remainder of the officers and seamen employed in the late operations in China; whether they can be

    777
    distributed before the Coronation; and whether it is intended to make a gratuity to the officers and seamen employed in those operations; and, if so, what will be the amount, and when will it probably be paid.
    (Answer.) The issue of these medals is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and orders have been given to the home ports, the Marine Divisions, the Channel and Cruiser Squadrons, and the Mediterranean Fleet, to furnish lists to those entitled to the medals in time for their issue before the Coronation. A gratuity will be granted to the Naval and Marine and Colonial Naval Forces employed in these operations as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. The amount and probable date of payment cannot be stated at present.—(Admiralty).

    Income Tax—Assessments under Schedule C.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether interest chargeable with income tax under Schedule C of the Income Tax Acts is chargeable at the rate in force at the date on which the interest is received in this country by the agent entrusted with its distribution, or at the rate in force at the date on which the interest becomes due.
    (Answer.) The hon. Member is presumably referring to interest from foreign or colonial sources, which is chargeable under Schedule C of the Income Tax Acts. The income tax on such interest is payable at the rate in force at the date at which payment of the interest due is first obtainable in this country from the agent entrusted with its distribution.—(Treasury.)

    United Irish League and the Police.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a practice recently growing up amongst the police at Kildorrery and Ballindangan, North-East Cork, of taking up positions in the passages leading to, and at the doors of, rooms where meetings of the United
    778
    Irish League are being held; and, having regard to the character of such meetings, and seeing that the names of the members attending are regularly published in the newspapers, will he consider the desirability of recommending the discontinuance of the practice.
    (Answer.) I have already stated that where a branch of this society may reasonably be believed to have advocated 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 intimidation and of collecting evidence in the event of attempts being made to renew it. Pursuant to these instructions the police are closely watching the proceedings of the local branches of the League in the districts mentioned, and they will continue to pursue this course of action so long as may be necessary. On the 15th inst, the secretary to the branch at Kildorrery was convicted of the offence of criminal conspiracy against certain persons in the locality, who are boycotted, and sentenced to four months imprisonment. From this sentence an appeal has been lodged.—(Irish Office.)

    Government Office, Darjeeling.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that pensioners who are required to attend at the Government Office, Darjeeling, at 11 a.m. to receive their pension money are kept waiting until 5 p.m. before they are paid; and will he have some inquiry made into the matter.
    (Answer.) This matter is one as to which any complaints should be addressed to the local authorities. I do not propose to make any inquiry on the subject.—(India Office.)

    Sara Ghat Ferry.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to supersede the State steamers now used for crossing the river at the Sara Ghat Ferry by steamers of a modern type.
    (Answer.) This matter is one which rests with the local authorities.—(India Office.)

    Himalaya Narrow Gauge Railway.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that the space under the seats of the third-class carriages of the Himalaya Narrow Gauge Railway is open, and that the hand luggage of passengers is usually placed under the seats, will he consider the advisability of recommending to the Railway Department of the Government that these open spaces be enclosed by wire or otherwise, so that there may be no risk of luggage getting on the line, in view of the accident which occurred on the 4th January last to a train descending the mountain.
    (Answer.) The matter is one as to which any complaints should be addressed to the local authorities.—(India Office.)

    District Officers in India—Tentage Arrangements.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Lieutenant-Colonel Yates, in referring to the large tents used by district officers on tour in India, suggests that they might with advantage be superseded by the Swiss cottage and cashmere tents, which are handier and more economical; and will the suggestion receive consideration.
    (Answer.) I am content to leave the regulation of tentage used by district officers in India to the Indian Government.—(India Office.)

    Colombo Breakwater.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why no notification has been issued in the monthly notice to mariners of the several alterations in the position of the Rubble Stone light vessel at the new breakwater, Colombo.
    (Answer.) Alteration in the position of the light vessel to which the hon. Member refers was notified in the issue of notices to mariners of November, 1900, and again in the issue of January, 1902, and a notice on the subject appears in the issue for this month.—(Board of Trade.)

    Houses of Parliament—Risk from Neighbouring Sewers.
    MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has had his attention called to the condition of the sewers in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament; and whether he can make any statement upon this subject.
    (Answer.) No complaints have reached me lately. Some years ago attention was called to the unsatisfactory state of the sewers in the neighbourhood, and a Committee of the House of Commons reported on the need for improvements. The County Council considered, on representations from the Office of Works, methods for ventilating the Metropolitan main sewer, and the Council communicated with the Vestry as to altering the district sewers under the charge of that body. I think very little has been actually done, but some of the inlet ventilators in the street were altered. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that, as a result of an inquiry by a Committee in 1886, the drains of the Houses of Parliament were completely cut off from all risks from the public sewers.—(Office of Works.)

    Hyde Park Carriage Regulations.
    MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will advise the authorities to give the same facilities, subject to such regulations as may be thought desirable, to hackney cabs for using the roads in Hyde Park after 7 p.m. daily as are now accorded to private carriages.
    (Answer.) The rules for Hyde Park, under the Parks Regulation Act of 1872, provide that "hackney carriages may only enter at Victoria and Alexandra Gates, and may only use the direct road between those gates." I regret that I cannot undertake to advise an alteration of this Rule.—(Office of Works.)

    Diplomatic Service—Position of Attaches.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the fact that attachés to the

    781
    various embassies of the Empire have to pass an examination, and that after years of preparation and the successful passing of this examination these attachés have to serve for two years without pay or remuneration. Whether in any other Department in the public service such a rule exists; and seeing that at the termination of two years the salary is fixed at only £150 per annum, and considering that the expenses of Foreign Office attachés are greater than in any other Department of the Government, and, having regard to the nature of their duties, whether he will recommend the increase of their salaries.
    (Answer.) It is the case that attachés in the Diplomatic Service have to serve for two years after appointment without pay or remuneration. We have no information to show that such a rule exists in any other Department of the public service. The question of granting salaries to attachés and increasing the remuneration assigned to third secretaries has on several occasions been raised, but it has not hitherto been thought desirable to make the change suggested.—(Foreign Office.)

    (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      South African War—Publication of Proceedings at Courts Martial and Military Courts.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the publication of the evidence adduced at the court martial of Commander Scheepers who was convicted, the War Office will publish the evidence adduced at the court-martial of Commander Kritzinger who was acquitted.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR Mr. BRODRICK,): No, Sir; I see no necessity for publishing this evidence.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was he now convicted on the very same evidence as that on which Kritzinger was acquitted?
      [No answer was returned.]
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what explanation, if any, the War Office has to offer for the publication of the evidence adduced in the court martial on Commander Scheepers, and the withholding from the public of the evidence adduced in the court - martial on Morant, Handcock, Witton, and Picton, British officers, who were convicted of the murder of Boer prisoners.
      MR. BRODRICK: The trial of Commander Scheepers was by a military court held under martial law, but it was not a court-martial.

      Execution of Commander Scheepers.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to state the circumstances attending the execution of Commander Scheepers at Graft Reinet on the 18th of January last.
      MR. BRODRICK: I have made inquiries, and find that the execution of Commander Scheepers was carried out in the usual manner. Lord Kitchener telegraphed to me on 5th April—
      "The prisoner was most composed; he walked absolutely unaided to the chair, where he was fastened, as is always done. From the time he stepped from the ambulance till he was dead barely one minute elapsed. There were no piteous scenes, and no hitch of any sort."
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did he ask to be allowed to face death, and was he after that bandaged and tied in a chair?
      [No answer was returned.]
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You know it was so.

      Sir Redvers Buller.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the statements that have been made respecting Sir Redvers Buller with reference to the heliogram sent by him to Sir George White during the siege of Ladysmith, the War Office will now publish in full that heliogram or permit its publication in full by Sir Redvers Buller.
      MR. BRODRICK: Sir Redvers Buller has addressed me a communication on this matter, and I am not prepared at present to make any statement.

      Spanish-American War—British Diplomatic Action preceding the War.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, previous to the late war between the United States and Spain, any assurances were given by the British Government to the Government of the United States as to the conduct or policy of Great Britain in reference to that war; if so, whether such assurances were conveyed by word of mouth or by correspondence; and whether, in view of the time that has elapsed since the termination of that war, the terms of any such assurance and the text of all correspondence relating thereto that may have passed will now be laid upon the Table of this House.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): I can find no trace of any such assurances.

      Roman Catholic Chaplains for the Navy.
      MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether ho is aware that the Roman Catholic sailors, whose deaths were caused by the explosion of a gun aboard the warship "Mars," while manœuvring off Berehaven, were denied religious consolation while the Protestant sailors had the ministrations of the Church of England chaplain; whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at the inquest held as to the cause of death of these sailors; and, seeing that the jury urged on the Government the advisability of having at least one Roman Catholic chaplain attached to each squadron, whether he proposes to advise that effect shall be given to this recommendation of the jury.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Only one of the men who died subsequently to the recent gun accident on the "Mars" was a Roman Catholic.
      784
      His death took place in the hospital on shore, where the ministrations of a priest were available. My attention has been called to the remarks made by the jury. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, I stated the policy of the Admiralty with regard to embarking Roman Catholic chaplains in seagoing ships in February last, to the following effect: That,
      "In the future, when large squadrons of ships are detached from their stations for any length of time in circumstances which would preclude Roman Catholic sailors from receiving the ministrations of their religion, a Roman Catholic chaplain shall accompany those ships."
      That undertaking has been, and will be, observed. The ships of the Channel Squadron are rarely more than a week out of port, and do not, therefore, come under the terms of the undertaking. It is not proposed, therefore, to make any departure from the existing practice such as was recommended by the jury.
      CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the recommendation of the jury be carried out so far as the Mediterranean fleet is concerned?
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, a Roman Catholic chaplain has been despatched there.

      Accidents in Coal Mines.
      SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider if it is possible to give additional details of cases of disablement among coal miners, such as those obtainable from the Miners' Permanent Relief Funds and from the Central Association, which deals with nine English societies composing the Association and representing some 300,000 members; whether he has any official information to the effect that the accidents so shown are more numerous than those included in the Reports of the Inspectors of Mines; and whether he will arrange to give to the Inspectors of Mines power to report all cases of smart money and compensation paid by the collieries in their districts, and to distinguish

      785
      between accidents occurring to coal miners under sixteen and under twenty or twenty-one years of age.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): While the figures of fatal accidents in coal mines are, I believe, complete and accurate, it has long been recognised that the returns of non-fatal accidents, however useful for administrative purposes, are of little or no statistical value. The Act requires serious accidents to be reported, but leaves it to each mine owner to decide for himself what constitutes a serious accident. The whole subject of the reporting of accidents in mines is under the consideration of a small Departmental Committee, which I appointed some months ago, and I understand that the Committee hope to make some recommendations which will put the matter on a more satisfactory footing.
      SIR CHARLES DILKE: And as to the last paragraph of the Question?
      MR. RITCHIE: No doubt the Committee will consider the last point raised in the right hon. Gentleman's Question.

      Accidents in Metalliferous Mines.
      SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any official information explaining the increasing number and proportion of persons injured in metalliferous mines, and whether ho expects to be able to introduce a Metalliferous Mines Bill.
      MR. RITCHIE: The Returns of nonfatal accidents reported in metalliferous mines do not show an increase in the number of persons injured—on the contrary, there appears to be a decrease. No doubt these figures are open to the same objection as the figures of nonfatal accidents in coal mines, but the figures of fatal accidents, which are, I believe, thoroughly trustworthy, show similar results. The death-rate in metalliferous mines was lower last year than in any previous year since the statistics began in 1873. As to legislation, I have a Bill in draft, and should be
      786
      glad of a favourable opportunity of introducing it, but the right hon. Baronet will recognise that the question is full of difficulties, and it has to be remembered that the number of persons employed in metalliferous mines is not in itself large, and is not increasing.
      SIR CHARLES DILKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention called to the figures on which my Question is based—those in Dr. Oliver's book?
      MR. RITCHIE: I cannot say that I have read the book, but I am aware of the figures, of course.

      Imprisonment for Contempt of Court.
      MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how many persons were committed to prison for contempt of court in England between 1st October, 1899, and 31st December, 1901, and for what period each was detained in custody.
      MR. RITCHIE: This information is not at present in my possession, but I am having it collected.

      Sheffield Parachute Fatality.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent fatal accident to a lady parachutish at Sheffield; and whether it is his intention to issue a prohibition against performances by parachutists.
      MR. RITCHIE: I have seen accounts of this accident and view with regret public performances involving such risks to human life: but there is no law against them provided that the person is, if a female, over the age of 18, or 16 if a male. I have no power to issue the suggested prohibition.
      MR JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving to the local authority discretion in such matter.
      MR. RITCHIE: There has been comparatively recent legislation, and I think if we were to increase the age to meet cases of this kind strong objections might be raised. I understand that the lady parachutist who met with this accident was 23, and I question whether Parliament would be willing to consent to legislation which would prevent persons of that mature age taking part in such performances.

      Housing of Working Classes in London.
      MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the broad principle on which certain questions relating to the housing of the working classes in the Metropolis are placed under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, while similar questions in the rest of England and Wales are under that of the Local Government Board; and to what extent, if any, the division of jurisdiction is the result of the distinction drawn by the Treasury in the qualifications required of officials in their respective Departments.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): I do not think that the division of jurisdiction under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts rests on any broad principle. It is a survival of the arrangement made under the Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts which were consolidated by the Act of 1890. I am not aware that this division of jurisdiction is in any sense the result of the distinction referred to in the concluding part of the Question.

      Old Court Post Office.
      MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that it is contemplated to change the sub-post office from Old Court to Creagh; and seeing that the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Commissioners passed a resolution against the proposed change, and pointed out that it would cause inconvenience to the masters and sailors of ships who frequent the river
      788
      Illen, and who have no landing-place but Old Court in that part of the river, whether he will see that no such change is made in connection with this sub-post office.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It is proposed to improve the postal service to the Creagh district by sending the mails by train to Creagh railway station instead of by road to Old Court, and in connection with this alteration a question has arisen as to the expediency of removing the sub-post office from Old Court to Creagh. The Postmaster General has received a resolution from the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Commissioners against the removal of the office, and before coming to a decision he will consider the matter further.

      Irish Railay Rates—Complaints of Belfast Merchants.
      MR T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been made to the Board of Trade regarding the treatment whiskey merchants in Belfast are subjected to in the matter of rates; is he aware that all articles of commerce classified alike to whiskey are not being charged by carrying companies at similar rates; and will he state what steps, if any, he intends to take, by legislation or otherwise, to secure for whiskey merchants equality of treatment for the conveyance of their goods with the traders in other commodities.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir, the Board of Trade have received a representation on this subject and entered into correspondence with two of the Irish Companies, and also with the Railway Association with reference to the matter. I shall be happy to show the hon. and learned Member the replies received from the companies. These replies are somewhat lengthy, but they give a reasonable explanation of the position. There does not appear to be any substance in the present complaint, inasmuch as whiskey does not compete

      789
      with such articles as hardware and linen, although they are included in the same class with it.

      Belfast Police Force.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed increase in the Belfast police force will be made before July, and when it takes place will men who have previously served in Belfast be selected where possible.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): It has not yet been definitely decided to what extent the Belfast police force is to be increased, nor has a date been fixed for the appointment of additional constables. The most suitable men will be selected. Familiarity with the conditions of a large city like Belfast is an element to be considered in making such a selection.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Have not the local authorities strongly recommended an immediate increase of the force?
      MR. WYNDHAM: The increase is contemplated, but the extent and date I am not prepared to announce.

      Irisn Boarded out Children—Lady Inspector.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the protest of the Dundalk Board of Guardians and other public bodies to the refusal of the Local Government Board to select a Roman Catholic for the post of lady inspector of boarded-out children, although 90 per cent. of such children are Roman Catholics; will he explain why preference was given to a Protestant for such an office; and what qualifications, experience, or credentials did the lady appointed possess, and on what basis was the selection made.
      MR. WYNDHAM: The qualifications of the lady appointed to this position were set out in my reply to the Question put on the 15th instant by the hon. Member for the Leix Division
      790
      of Queen's County.† There appears to be some misunderstanding as to the duties of the inspector. She will have nothing whatever to say to the education of the children, nor will she have the selection of nurses. The authority of the Guardians and of the Ladies' Committees will in no way be lessened or impaired by her appointment. She is not empowered to make any order with respect to the children; she can only make recommendations concerning them to the Guardians and the Committees. The inspector appointed was not selected on account of her religion, which was not even inquired into, but because of her previous experience and fitness for the post.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: On what Vote will the salary appear?
      MR. WYNDHAM: The Vote for the Local Government Board.

      Annaghmore Riots.
      MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many Justices of the Peace in the Petty Sessions District of Clonmacate, County Armagh, are Roman Catholics; what resident magistrate will attend the trial of the Annaghmore rioters; whether any rioters have been identified other than those already summoned, and, if so, whether they will be prosecuted.
      MR. WYNDHAM: This is the seventh Question addressed to me by the hon. Member in respect of proceedings for riot which are now pending. All the information that can properly be given has already been given, and I must decline to discuss a matter which is subjudice.
      MR. MACVEAGH: What is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to answering the first part of the Question?
      MR. WYNDHAM: I object to discussing the personnel of the Bench before which the case is to come.
      †See p. 368.

      Irish Commissioners of National Education.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Have the Government any objection to the return on Education which stands in my name on the paper? †
      MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot give the Departmental correspondence, but I agree to give all asked for under heads A, and B, 3 and 4.

      Business of the House.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business on Friday.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Objection has been expressed to taking on that day the Motion to make the orders already passed Standing Orders, and there is a certain inconvenience in that course, as any further progress we may make with the new Procedure Rules would have to be brought forward at a later period of the session. I therefore propose on Friday to take Supply—the Home Office Vote first, and
      † The Return was as follows:—

      EDUCATION (IRELAND) (COMMISSIONERS' ORDERS)—RETURN SHOWING
      A.—(1) Number of Orders made by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, between the 1st day of April, 1900, and the 1st day of April, 1902, cancelling the salaries of assistant teachers in National schools owing to the average attendance being under sixty.
      (2) And number of such appointments that would not have been cancelled if the average attendance for an assistant were recognised at fifty instead of sixty.
      (3) Also up to what date and for what period previously was an average attendance of fifty accepted by the Commissioners as sufficient to qualify a school for the services of an assistant.
      (4) Amount of balance of Parliamentary Vote surrendered by the Commissioners of National Education to the Treasury for the financial years ended respectively—31st day of March, 1900, 31st day of March, 1901, 31st day of March, 1902, with total for three years period.
      afterwards Class IV., Votes 1 to 7, Education, and so forth. That will count as half an allotted day.

      SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
      Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure the following fifteen members in respect of the University of Wales (Graduates) Bill:—Sir William Anson, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. Edwards, Sir Michael Foster, Mr. Jebb, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Kenyon, General Laurie, Mr. Joseph Lawrence, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. Frederick Morgan, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Alfred Thomas, and Major Wyndham-Quin.
      Report to lie upon the Table.

      COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. [LORDS.]
      Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 224]
    NEW BILL.

      ICE CREAM SHOPS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
      "For the better regulation of Ice Cream Shops in Scotland," presented by Mr. Orr-Ewing, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Cameron Corbett. Mr.
      B.—(1) Correspondence in 1900, 1901, and 1902 between managers or principals of Irish training Colleges under private management and the Commissioners of National Education and Irish Government, on proposed increase in number of students in those colleges.
      (2) Also all correspondence on the subject of equipment giants, with a view to carry out new programme for teachers and schools, and of suitable salaries for the teachers of the practising schools attached to each training college.
      (3) Number of students in the male and female departments respectively of the Marlborough Street Training College at the commencement of current session (1901–2), with the religious denomination of such students.
      (4) Corresponding Returns for each of the training colleges under private management.
      John Dewar, and Mr. Law; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

      ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE VOLUNTEERS BILL.
      [SECOND READING.]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have to explain that its object is to remedy a patent detect in the present law. Under the statute of 1859 the Admiralty were given powers to raise Naval Volunteers, now known as the Royal Naval Reserve. These Volunteers were compelled by the terms of the statute to be men resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. In 1896 it was desired to employ in the Royal Naval Reserve men serving in the Canadian Pacific Line of steamers, and an Act was passed permitting the enlistment of these men. But it contained the limitation that such men must be serving in a vessel registered in the British Isles, which, as a matter of fact, the vessels of the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company were. Since that time Volunteers have been enlisted into the Royal Naval Reserve in the colony of Newfoundland, and there is no statutory warrant for their enlistment. The object of the Bill, therefore, is to remedy that state of things, and permit British subjects serving in ships registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, and residing outside it, to enter the Royal Naval Reserve. The Bill is merely intended to legitimate the entry of the men who have already entered, and permit the entry of other men in similar circumstances in the future.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he thought that any discussion on the Bill might be deferred till the Committee stage, and he did not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading, but he would point out that the Bill was retrospective, and
      794
      amounted really to an act of indemnity. He would like to ask for an explanation as to the effect of the proposal in the Bill to omit the words "serving on a vessel registered in the British Islands." That would make it possible to include vessels which were not registered in any part of the British dominions at all, and would enable men to be retained in the Royal Naval Reserve who were serving on board ships under a foreign flag. Was that really intended to be its effect? He did not know that anything was to be gained by retaining these words, even if their omission entailed the consequence to which he had referred, because the registration of ships in this country appeared to him no longer to afford any guarantee whatever that the ships so registered were in any proper sense of the word British ships. There was no reason whatever why the majority of shares in a British company should not be held by foreigners. He thought that at this stage of the Bill they might have an explanation from the Government whether it was really intended to retain in the Royal Naval Reserve men who were serving in foreign ships.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman had declared that the Bill was to remedy a patent defect in the law, but in his opinion it was not a remedial Bill at all. It was a measure to give indemnity to the Admiralty for having committed acts the illegality of which had been pointed out by the Public Accounts Committee, of which he had the honour to be a member. The Government chose, without a proper examination of the law on the subject, to do a tiling which they had no legal power to do, and, although the enlistment of Newfoundlanders was most proper and desirable, the Government certainly ought not to have sanctioned it without first making themselves acquainted with the legal position. Their powers were really limited to enrolling British subjects serving on board ships registered in the British Islands, and the Newfoundland men, as a fact, were not so serving. The Comptroller and Auditor General found out the mistake which had been made, and had it not been for him the illegality might still be continued.

      795
      The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that it was possible, as the law stood, for a ship to be practically owned by a foreign corporation and yet to be registered as a British ship. He disagreed with the hon. Member on that point. He believed that when a ship had fallen wholly under the dominion of a foreign corporation it ceased to be, in the words of the Merchant Shipping Act, "a ship owned by British subjects or corporation." In view of the large transfer of British shipping to take place on 31st December next, the question arose whether His Majesty's Government were prepared to go on enrolling in the Naval Reserve British subjects sailing under a foreign flag. He thought it would be an entirely improper thing to do. He objected further to the method by which it was proposed to amend what the hon. Gentleman called a patent defect in the law. In his opinion, it was most improper. It was proposed to omit certain words from the Act of 1896; he would rather leave the words in, and add at the end the words "or in British possessions." That would be a desirable amplification of existing powers, and in Committee he hoped the Government would see their way to adopting his suggestion. He did not think there were any grounds for opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.
      MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid that if the Bill gave power to register in the Royal Naval Reserve sailors who were serving under a foreign flag, it would do away with the only safeguard we had that the Reserve should consist of British sailors serving in British ships.
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Bill provides that only British subjects shall be enrolled.
      MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: But can they be enrolled if they are serving under a foreign flag? That is the point.
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not our intention to employ men of any other nationality who may be serving in British ships. As to whether British subjects serving in foreign ships shall be enrolled, I understand it is intended
      796
      to move an Amendment on that point in Committee, and I will reserve till then any remarks I may have to make.
      MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he should like to draw attention to the case of the Chinese in Australia. They were considered British subjects. Could they be enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve?
      MR. BLAKEthought the Member for King's Lynn was under a misapprehension. It was true the Bill was partly designed to indemnify the Admiralty in regard to certain acts, but it was mainly designed to remedy a defect in the law. In justice to the Admiralty, he must say that they themselves and not the Comptroller and Auditor General, who, indeed, had not the opportunity, discovered the irregularity which had been committed in the enrolment of the Newfoundland fishermen. This Bill would simply make the law what it ought to be, subject to amendment as to service under the flag, which he rather favoured.
      MR. MACDONA: Will the Admiralty be willing to accept the services of the watermen and lightermen of London if they volunteer for the Naval Reserve?
      SIR CHARLES DILKEthought the hon. Member was misled by the title of the Bill. It had nothing to do with what were commonly called the naval volunteers, it dealt solely with reserve men, and therefore the question raised by the hon. Member did not come in. He thought they ought to have some indication as to the principles which would guide the Government in the debates in Committee. He should like to point out that since 1870 a double allegiance was possible, and British subjects could also be American citizens without losing the allegiance to the Crown. There were many offices in the United States which could only be held by citizens of the United States, and which had been filled by gentlemen who had continued to be British subjects. Accordingly, the Government would not guard entirely against the danger which his hon. friend

      797
      had pointed out by merely using the phrase British subjects, for many American citizens were British subjects.
      THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said he thought the question whether a British subject who was not a native of these islands could join the Naval Reserve scarcely arose under this Bill, as the power existed already.
      SIR CHARLES DILKE: The power at present is limited by registration in the British Isles.
      MR. PRETYMANsaid his point was that the limitation of the kind of British subject who should be enabled to join the Naval Reserve did not exist now. There were two separate questions—as to the ship, and as to the man. The Government wanted to remove the limitation as to ships, but they were not asking for any change with regard to the men. Under this Bill the Admiralty took the power to enlist a British subject in any ship, even if flying a foreign flag. It was distinctly a question for Committee whether it was wise that the Government should take this power. The mere possession of the power did not, of course, necessarily entail its exercise. Referring to an interruption by the hon. Member for Dundee, he said it was a fact that a limited power already existed by which the Admiralty could allow Naval Reserve men to serve in ships flying foreign flags. If it was not thought wise to extend that power, the Committee could deal with the point. The Bill embraced within its scope all ships registered in any British possession, and even went beyond that, so as to include any ship.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

      PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
      [SECOND READING.]
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st April] "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      Question again proposed.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there were two or three matters which he desired to refer to in connection with this Bill. One part of Dublin was the same to him as another, for he held no property in any part of the city, but he thought the House of Commons in the past had cast a good deal of taxation on the north side of Dublin as against the south side. At the present time the rates on the north side were 4d. or 5d. in the £ more than on the south side, and the result of this Bill would be to still further aggravate this evil. Instead of bringing this college of science near to the homes of the poor and the working classes who desired to use it, it was to be erected near the homes of the aristocracy who required it the least. He wished to know who was responsible for the selection of the site of this great institution. He also wished to know whether it would be possible to leave the whole question of the site of this important college to the Select Committee which it was proposed to refer the Bill to. This would be a mere matter of form. Unless this were done the question of the site would be absolutely excluded from the purview of the Committee because it was pre-determined by the positive plans which had been lodged. He thought they were entitled to ask who were the gentlemen who had taken upon themselves the selection of this site in the aristocratic and improving part of the city, which was necessarily the dearest part. The property on the southern side was double the value of that on the northern side, and by taking this site they were lessening to that extent the amount that would be available for the college itself. He did not wish to offer any undue opposition, but he thought there would be a saving of thousands of pounds upon this question of the site alone if the claims of the north side were considered and the aristocracy allowed to emigrate to the other side.
      MR. DILLONsaid that they were entitled to know what offices it was proposed to find accommodation for in the new building, and some explanation of the necessity for moving the offices from one site to another. He fully sympathised with the view expressed by

      799
      the hon. Member for North Louth as to the selection of the site. No doubt it would be said by the Minister in charge of the Bill that the site had been chosen because of its proximity to the National Library and Museum, but after all Dublin was a small place, and one could walk across it in a quarter of an hour. After their experiences of the Government architect it was too much, he feared, to hope that a handsome building would be put up, but why on earth had they selected a site for it in the most expensive residential part of the city? and why were they removing some of the noblest old houses still remaining in Dublin for the purpose of putting up this new structure? The hon. Member for North Louth had spoken of the district as the home of the aristocracy but there was no aristocracy in Ireland.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I withdraw the word.
      MR. DILLONadded that whatever beggared remnant rejoiced in the name of the aristocracy had already migrated to the other side of the Channel. But these houses, of which any city in Europe might well be proud, were falling into ruin and were deserted, and now it was proposed to spend on the site a sum of £90,000, which could be much more advantageously used for the improvement of the city. He could not understand why such a site had been chosen when one could have been obtained equally good at a quarter of the price.
      MR. MOONEYreminded the Secretary to the Treasury that, in reply to a question, he had promised, before the Bill left the House, to state definitely what architect would be employed. He rose now to ask who the architect would be who was to be entrusted with the drawing up of the plans for this new college.
      MR. CALDWELLsaid that in the case of public buildings he had always protested against the selection of expensive sites, because he could not see why the taxpayers should be mulcted in heavy charges for rates. He thought the discussion which had taken place justified the House in refusing to allow this Bill to pass.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that hon. Members from Ireland were naturally anxious to know what offices were referred to in this Bill. In the first place, as they were probably aware, the houses which they were proposing to use in connection with the scheme under this Bill, were already in part the property of the Government. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, which was the Department immediately concerned, had its offices in the block of houses referred to. That Department did a very important work, and its work had grown very largely since its inception. The available accommodation for this Department was quite insufficient, and this was the first Department for which proper accommodation had to be found. In the second place, he had found the very strongest objection from authorities which he could not question or disregard. At the present time there was overcrowding in the Local Government Board offices.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: There is plenty of room in the Customs Offices.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was not so. The clerks under that Board were working under circumstances which, whatever might be the desire of the Treasury to save money, they would not be justified in ignoring after attention had been called to them. It was proposed now to find increased accommodation, and the accommodation set free in the Customs House would be available in part for the Irish branch of the Stationery Office, and partly for the Irish Works Department. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for East Mayo to the architectural beauty of the houses to be dealt with under the scheme. He himself went over to Dublin last autumn for the purpose of seeing this site and of viewing the college site, in order to satisfy himself as to the suitability of the site selected, and as to the necessity of taking over the houses. He saw those houses, and he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that they were very beautiful houses. It was not, however, their intention to pull.

      801
      those houses down; all they proposed was to adapt them to office use. Of course he could not forecast the future, and anything he now said would not prevent a future Government from dealing with the block of houses as a whole, or pulling them down or altering them more than it was at present proposed to do. It was not their intention to interfere with the structure of the buildings, but simply to adjust their internal arrangements for the purpose of using the houses as offices. Hon. Members would see that what they had provided for in this Bill, so far as those offices were concerned, was only the cost of the site and the buildings upon it. They did not think it was right to put the cost of the adaptation of the houses for the new offices in this Bill, and this expenditure would be provided for in the Works Vote for the current year.
      The site they proposed to utilise for the building of the new college was part of the gardens at the back of those houses. He did not think that this was a case in which they ought to build an extravagant building, although they ought to have a building of a suitable character for the work. That was the first and the greatest necessity. He thought the work of a science college might be made of the highest importance to the development of Ireland. He had had an opportunity of conversing with some of the professors in Ireland, and the Professor of Engineering told him that for every pupil who took a certificate there, there was almost an immediate opening in Ireland. This Professor said that the accommodation in the present College of Science was so bad and inefficient that they were unable to train up those who would have been willing to come to Dublin in order to train for positions as civil engineers under Irish local authorities. The consequence was that they had to apply to this country, because Ireland did not offer them efficient training. He thought they ought to provide Ireland with the means of giving that training to Irishmen, and after having received this training they could take their chance of getting appointments in other parts of the United Kingdom. It was very important that they should have a building suitable for those technical purposes.
      802
      The hon. Member for South Dublin suggested upon a previous occasion that they should have competition in regard to the architect. He doubted whether in such matters competition was ever wise. The English Office of Works had come to the conclusion that none of their most successful buildings had been the result of competition. But, however that might be as a general rule, he was certain that this was not a case to which competition could be applied. The success or non-success of this building depended upon the adaptation of numberless details of internal construction. Therefore he believed they would have to make their selection of an architect without competition. He only mentioned this matter now because he thought that the most important thing with regard to it was that the building should be suitable for the very important work which it would have to perform. He hoped the building would be a credit to Dublin, and be no dishonour to the surroundings in which it found itself. He did not see why they should not get a fine and beautiful building, such as Irishmen might feel proud of, without going to any needless or extravagant expense.
      He now came to the reasons for choosing this particular site. He was not altogether a free agent on this question. When he came to the Treasury the matter had to a certain extent been decided. Proposals had been before the House, a Vote of money had been granted by the House, and some of the houses referred to had actually been purchased out of the money so provided in order to make way for this scheme. The whole of the scheme would require thirteen houses in Upper Merrion Street. Of those houses four or five were in possession of the Government. Those houses, or a portion of them, were bought by moneys provided by Parliament for the express purpose of obtaining a site for the College of Science. Therefore, he took it that a portion of the site had already been bought out of moneys provided by Parliament for this purpose, and to that extent the case was prejudiced. He did not in any way doubt the wisdom of the choice. He quite appreciated the desire of hon. Members opposite that all the fine buildings in Dublin should not be concentrated in one spot. Some of those most interested in

      803
      the work of this college attached enormous importance to the consideration referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo that the new college should be close to the museum and library. Complaint had been made that the present college, which was separated by something less than five minutes walk from those places, was inconveniently distant. The scheme proposed would bring all these buildings together, and tend to the advantage of the work which was to be carried on. The amount of money the scheme was expected to cost was stated in the Bill, but it would be contrary to his duty to say what portion of the sum it would be necessary to pay to the various interests connected with the property proposed to be acquired. To do so would be to give himself away before going into court, and to prejudge the case, for the benefit not of the Government, but of the private individuals concerned. He thought he had reason to believe that the cost of the site would not be extravagant, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who took an interest in economy, which he admired and shared, need not be afraid that the taxpayers' money was being wasted in this respect.
      He had hoped to be able to make the announcement at the present time of the name of the architect selected, and the only reason why he was not able to de so was because no choice had yet been made. He had been in communication with the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the representative of the Board of Agriculture, who were entitled to be approached in the matter, as also with his own advisers at the Office of Works, and they had considered the claims of several architects, both Irish and British. He personally had been most anxious that for a building of this kind, to be erected in the principal city of Ireland, they should receive the assistance and advice of an Irish architect. He thought it might be desirable, for the reasons adverted to by the hon. Member for South Dublin, to associate an Irish architect with an English architect, but he would not like to be held as giving a definite pledge at this stage. He thought hon. Members from Ireland might take it that an Irish architect would be connected with the work, even if it was felt
      804
      to be necessary to have associated with him an English architect also. He would undertake not to take the Third Reading of the Bill until he was able to give the name of the architect to the House.
      MR. CLANCYsaid the speech of the hon. Gentleman would afford a great deal of dissatisfaction to the Irish Members of the House. He thought one of the recommendations of the scheme was that some imposing and magnificent building would be erected on the site.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is what the hon. Member for East Mayo protested against.
      MR. CLANCY: The hon. Member for East Mayo has his view and I have mine, and it is not a vital matter that divides us. It now appeared that what was to be done was to erect this building on the site of the stables at the back of the street. The hon. Gentleman said it would be an imposing building, but who would see it? Nobody would see it from Kildare Street. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] He did not believe it. It was to be hidden away on the site of the existing stables attached to the houses. That made the Bill more unsatisfactory to him than he formerly thought it was. They had not been told the amount of money that was to be spent on the purchase of the site. As far as he could see, the Government were going to spend most of the money in renovating the houses for the accommodation of existing public offices.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he should be sorry that the hon. Member I should base his argument on a misunderstanding of what he said. The money was for the purchase of the site of the houses, and the gardens, and the erection of the College of Science.
      MR. CLANCYsaid this was rather a vital point. He wanted to know how much of the money was to be spent on the renovation of existing Government houses, and how much upon the College of Science. The hon. Gentleman had not told the House who selected the site. It

      805
      was a humiliating thing to think that in this purely Irish matter the last persons to be consulted were Irishmen. [Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN shook his head.] Had a single Irish representative been consulted Had the Corporation ever been asked a word about it? Had any Irish public body been asked to give its opinion as to the selection of the site? He ventured to I say that they had not, and he would almost go so far as to say that no Irishman occupying any representative position, or any one, except persons connected in some way with the Government, had ever been allowed to have a say or to make a recommendation on the subject. A circumstance like that was to him a source of the utmost humiliation. He supposed the Financial Secretary of the Treasury went over to Ireland with a return ticket in his pocket, and that, with the assistance of another Englishman, he selected the site, without even making known to the Irish public the decision at which he had arrived. He did not then make any Parliamentary proposition which the Irish Members could debate. He supposed that even upon this Bill they should not have had an opportunity for discussion, but that the Government did not know what to do with their time and that I they put it down for the consideration of the House. The hon. Gentleman having selected the site without regard to Irish opinion, and having received the opinion of nobody except a few snobs living in Merrion Square, proceeded to determine in his own mind that the college should be erected on the spot mentioned. The reason he gave was that the building would then be connected with the Department of Agriculture. There was not the slightest reason why the building should he placed in such a position. As had been said, Dublin was a small city—not like Belfast. They might go across the whole city in a tramcar in five minutes, and there was no actual necessity, nor was it highly desirable, that the college should be in the place now proposed, in order that it might be near the Agricultural Department, especially when the Agricultural Department could be removed to the site of the new college. But even if the Agricultural Department and the college were divided from
      806
      each other, what great harm would there be? One of the hon. Gentleman's plans consequential on the present arrangements was to split up the Local Government Board, whose offices were now in the Custom House. It appeared that it was intended to transport some of them over to Merrion Street, but if the offices of any Department ought to be in close communication and physical proximity to each other, it was those of the Local Government Board.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the whole of the Local Government Board offices were to be taken over to the new site.
      MR. CLANCYsaid that that was an entirely new thing to him. The Irish people assumed that the character of this Bill was to provide money for an educational establishment, and that was the only object mentioned in any utterance, written or spoken, by any member of the Government. Now, it was not a college that was to be provided at all, but Government offices. No wonder the college of science was to take not a front but a back place on the site. It was only on a par with all this that no Irish architect was to have anything to do with that building. Was it not a most humiliating thing to think that the hon. Gentleman himself, an Englishman, in a matter concerning Ireland, should be able to get up at the Table in this foreign Assembly——
      MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in speaking of this House as a foreign Assembly.
      MR. CLANCY: It is a foreign Assembly and nothing else.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: It is a foreign Assembly, and a hateful foreign Assembly at that.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not a respectful way of speaking of the House of Commons to say that it is a hateful Assembly; but to state that it is a foreign Assembly I cannot say is out of order.
      MR. CLANCYsaid it was a most humiliating thing to think that the hon. Gentleman should get up at that Table, and addressing Irishmen, say that it would not be expedient to associate the English architect who designed the new buildings with an Irish architect. He would not ask that an Irish architect should be employed if he were distinctly inferior, and utterly without any architectural ability; but it so happened that some of the finest buildings in Ireland were designed by Irishmen, including the existing buildings in Kildare Street, and possibly an Irishman could be got to design the new College of Science. He could only say that he, for one, had had no idea that the Bill was for anything else than the erection of a College of Science in Dublin; but it now turned out that it was practically a Bill for the housing of the existing Government establishments in Dublin. He had no admiration for Government pretentions, and he thought that the speech of the hon. Gentleman had thrown new light on the matter, and that there should be further discussion upon it. He was not inclined to allow the matter to end with any remarks of his, and he begged therefore to move.
      SIR THOMAS ESMONDEseconded the Amendment. The propositions contained in the Bill had come upon the Irish Members very much as a surprise. The Local Government Board had already very fine offices in Dublin, and to remove them, he thought, would be a mistake. Irish Members were not all of them very much enamoured with the Local Government Board, and he thought they had a right to ask how much of the new building was to be given over to that Board, and what was to happen to their present premises. He was not quite clear as to the position of the Government in regard to the architect of the new building; but he understood that an Irish architect was not to be employed. Now, there could not be any difficulty in finding a capable Irish architect in Dublin, Belfast, or other parts of Ireland, and he hoped that the Government would take steps to secure the best local available talent for designing the new buildings, which he trusted would be entirely devoted to the purposes of the College of Science.
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'this House is not prepared to proceed with this Bill unless the question of site is also left to the Select Committee.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it would be fatal to the Bill if the Amendment were accepted, for it would involve the postponement of all progress with the scheme for at least another year. He felt bound to say that he did not feel encouraged to persevere in this apparently very contentious task. He had hoped to have the full support of the Irish Members, in whatever corner of the House they sat.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Not a shilling for the Local Government Board.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that so far as the Government were concerned, this scheme stood or fell as a whole. They proposed to acquire the block of houses which were in close proximity to the National Gallery and the Museum, and to adapt them for the purposes of public offices. On the other portion of the site they proposed to erect the new Royal College of Science. The money for adapting the existing houses to public offices was not included in the £225,000 which they asked power to raise under the Bill for the Royal College of Science. Hon. Members would find in the Vote for Public Works in Ireland the sum of £9,500; that was the cost of adapting the existing buildings for the purposes of offices. The hon. Baronet opposite had spoken as if the whole or a large portion of this £225,000 was going to be expended in the provision of new offices, but no portion of that sum would be spent in connection with the new offices, except in respect of the sites and buildings. It was only right that the block should be taken as a whole. By far the largest portion of this £225,000 would be spent directly on the new Royal College of Science, but as additional accommodation was clearly wanted for offices in Ireland they proposed

      809
      to combine the building of the new college with the acquisition of the existing buildings for new offices for the Department of Agriculture and the Local Government Board. He asked only for reasonable treatment in this matter. Hon. Members opposite would surely not contend that, because they disapproved of the policy which the Irish Government or the Irish Local Board had pursued, they should punish, the clerks by compelling them to work under conditions inimical to health, and conditions which would be condemned by any sanitary officer if he had power to enter into these offices. The policy of the Local Government Board might be right or it might be wrong, but whatever the views of hon. Members opposite might be in that regard, surely they would admit that it was imperative to find proper accommodation for the clerks employed in that office. These clerks were at present housed in the Customs, where their rooms were very much overcrowded; other Departments were housed in leasehold premises. It was proposed to make a rearrangement by adapting existing buildings to the wants of growing Departments, and to take the Local Government Board staff out of the Customs and place them in a new building. With regard to the selection of the site hon. Members did him great injustice if they thought he had not consulted Irish opinion upon this matter. With regard to the new College of Science, the matter had been the subject of a large correspondence, and so far as he knew every authority consulted agreed that this was the best site. The only Irish opinion which had been disregarded in the matter was the opinion expressed in Belfast that Belfast was the proper site for this building. Therefore it would be seen that Irish opinion had received the anxious attention of the Irish Government, and the different authorities had concurred that this was the best site that could be selected.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. Gentleman had no doubt made a conciliatory speech, but for his part he did not think the hon. Gentleman had removed a single one of the objections that had developed during the course of the Second Beading of the Bill. If anyone read the Bill they would suppose that this was a measure to
      810
      establish a Royal College of Science. That was the conclusion they would come to from the title of the Bill, but incidentally—not in any statement by the Government, but by accident—it had come out that this Bill was to be used for giving efficient offices to the Local Government Board of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that new offices were needed. At the present moment the Irish Local Government Board occupied one of the most glorious buildings in Dublin, a building erected in the time of the Irish Parliament for Irish Customs; but, unfortunately, Irish Customs had long since become a thing of the past, so the Government had turned this glorious building into a Local Government Board office. The hon. Gentleman said the clerks lived there under unsanitary conditions. That he denied, but even if it were true he would invite the Government to remove the Local Government Board Offices to the Four Courts, from which the Government had evicted and expelled the Dublin County Council. He had been asked whether he would be a party to condemning the clerks of the Local Government Board Office to work under insanitary conditions. He denied that they did. And how little had the Government considered how it had condemned the labourers of Ireland to live under insanitary conditions. All over the country Boards of Guardians had pressed for cottages for these unfortunate people, but a single objection taken to the site by the bailiff of a landowner was sufficient to prevent the cottages being built. It really seemed that under the pretence of giving Ireland a College of Science the Government was really going to erect a new arsenal of ascendancy in the capital. So far as he was concerned, he cared not whether this Bill was delayed for another year or another ten years, but he would be no party to paying one sixpence for putting one stick or one stone upon another for the purpose of building new offices for the Local Government Board. He admitted that there was a necessity for more accommodation for the Board of Agriculture, but that accommodation could be given on very easy terms, only a few thousand pounds being necessary for that purpose. There was no necessity for the

      811
      enormous expenditure contemplated by this Bill. It appeared to him that the bulk of the money was to be spent, not on education, but on Departmental accommodation, for the College of Science was to be put in the background and the Government offices in the front. He saw no evil whatever in the question of the postponement of the site, and nothing unreasonable in their request that the question should be considered by a Select Committee.
      MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONsaid he rose to take part in the debate with great regret. It had often been a matter of complaint that the Imperial Parliament had done nothing to promote the temporal welfare of Ireland, but here was a very generous attempt to erect a much-needed College of Science in Dublin, and, instead of its being received by a chorus of approval by Gentlemen opposite, there had been a unanimous outcry against this action by a "foreign Assembly." He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the expediency of withdrawing the Bill this session. If the gratitude of Ireland was to be shown as it had been shown in this House, there was very little encouragement for the British Parliament doing anything further in this direction. He could tell his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury that there was one city in Ireland where a College of Science would be welcomed; and he asked the Government, remembering the reception that this proposition had met with on the other side of the House, to transfer the college from Dublin to Belfast.
      MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member opposite had quite mistaken the attitude of the Irish Members. Their protest was not against the very long-delayed redemption of the old promise to erect a College of Science in Dublin, but against the introduction into the Bill of a totally irrelevant and incongruous proposal. According to the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury, the College of Science was only an addendum to the Bill, the main purpose of which was to accommodate the Local Government Board with new lodgings. He knew the proposed site of the college perfectly well, and such an extraordinary
      812
      proposition had never been laid before the House of Commons as to erect an important building such as the College of Science on the site of the stables of a row of houses and in such a position that it could not be seen from any point of the city. Apparently, the college, which ought to be the main, if not the sole, purpose of this Bill, had been sacrificed to the Local Government Board, and from beginning to end the Irish representatives had had no voice in the selection of the site or the arrangement of the plans. Because the proposal to found a College of Science was acceptable to a large section of the Irish people, the opportunity was taken to tack on to it an unpopular proposal, and then the House were told that they must either take it as a whole or not at all. That was not a proper way in which to deal with the House of Commons, and it was not fair treatment of the Irish Members. The same class of considerations as applied to the question of the locality and lodgings of the Local Government Board did not apply to the question of the locality and arrangements of the College of Science He had no desire to see the clerks of the Local Government Board obliged to work in over-crowded and insanitary rooms, but that was no reason why the Board should be moved bodily from its present premises to the centre of the most fashionable and expensive part of Dublin. A more preposterous proposal was never made. Why could not suitable accommodation have been secured in the neighbourhood of the Customs House? The whole of the trouble in connection with the present stage of the Bill arose from the indefensible action of the Government in tying these two schemes together. He appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury to reconsider this question of site, and give them a College of Science which would be open to the street, and would add to the architectural beauty, as well as the educational resources, of Dublin.
      LORD BALCARRESsaid he had been under the impression that the houses in question were to be razed. According to the scheme as he now understood it, the college would be invisible except from the back windows of the surrounding

      813
      houses, and would have merely a narrow and ignominious approach. Under these circumstances an expenditure of anything like £180,000, as mentioned by the hon. Member for East Mayo, would be altogether excessive. He warned the Financial Secretary against the policy he had enunciated of associating one architect with another. That was the policy which ruined the Law Courts and the Foreign Office, and, though there would be uncommonly little to ruin in the present building, the policy of choosing one competent man, whether he was English, Scotch, or Irish, and allowing him to do the work, should be followed. A point which had not been noticed in the discussion was that of the allocation of the buildings on the site. The College of Science would occupy not much more than a quarter of the site, but, according to the plan, it was to be placed in such a manner as effectively to prevent the future extension of either the Dublin Museum or the college itself. The Museum already required extension, not only in the library but in other departments as well, and the college also would require extension in the future. He urged the Financial Secretary, if he proceeded with the present site, so to rearrange the buildings that due extensions would be possible to meet future needs. At the same time he hoped hon. Members from Ireland would not press their opposition to the Bill to such an extent that the Order would be discharged, because the building was undoubtedly extremely necessary for the industrial development of the country, and if the present proposal was withdrawn they would probably hear nothing more about it.
      MR. NANNETTIobjected to a portion of the best residential part of Dublin being used for offices for the Local Government Board. If fresh offices were necessary, suitable accommodation might certainly have been found on the north side of the city, and would have been much less expensive. He strongly objected to the Government taking up a scheme like this, and attempting to rush it through without giving the popular representatives of the people full information upon it. He hoped the House would agree with the representatives from Ireland, who knew
      814
      what the city of Dublin required in this matter. The site chosen was not a suitable one, and far more suitable sites could be had at a much less cost, which would have met the requirements of the people of Dublin far better than the site which had been chosen. He was inclined to think that the statement about erecting this College of Science in Belfast instead of in Dublin was a little joke on the part of the hon. Member for South Belfast.
      MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: It was not a joke at all.
      MR. NANNETTIthought the hon. Gentleman would find public opinion would be too strong for him if he suggested that this college should be erected in Belfast. They had no desire to kill the scheme, but they objected to it being rushed through the House without full information being given. This was a Bill involving the expenditure of £250,000, and the representatives of all Ireland had not been consulted upon it. Many residents in Dublin who were opposed to him politically had urged him to protest against this scheme, which dispossessed them of their grand residences in order to make room for clerks for whom proper accommodation could easily be provided on the north side. He strongly objected to the pulling down of those grand buildings, because there were plenty of suitable sites on the other side of the city for the erection of such a building. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid he could not understand why the Government should have selected the city of Dublin in which to erect a College of Science. It was an institution which would be utterly unappreciated by the people of that city. It would be only appreciated on account of the show it would make as a building, but as a teaching centre of science that idea would be utterly absent from the minds of the people of Dublin. What they wanted was a building to look at; and the complaint of the hon. Member for East Mayo was that the building was to be in a place where nobody would see it.

      815
      What did it matter from a scientific point of view, if the building were only properly equipped, whether it could be seen by people passing through the locality? The inhabitants of Dublin had never gone into the College of Science. He would recommend the Government to build a skating rink, or some establishment of that sort, at a small cost, rather than put a College of Science in that part of Ireland, where it would not be properly taken advantage of. The college ought to have been established in the city of the largest population in Ireland—the city of Belfast, where science teaching would have been appreciated, for there the industrial population was largely engaged in technical and scientific industries. It was just as easy to get from all parts of Ireland to Belfast as to Dublin, and the students, if the college were placed at Belfast, would mix with a population in which technical knowledge would be general, and thus derive great advantages. Not only would they mingle with a people engaged in scientific pursuits, but have the advantage of acquiring a good sound education, to say nothing of the experience to be gained in the dockyards and other places in Belfast. It was almost heart-rending to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite use the arguments they had adduced that I evening, for they were simply disputing whether the college should be built on the north or the south side of the city of Dublin.
      MR. DILLON: The Bill does not raise that question, as to which side of the city the college should be built.
      MR. MACARTNEY: I think the Government should abandon that part of the Bill dealing with the College of Science, and proceed only with that portion relating to the offices for the Local Government Board. The clerks in those offices are working under conductions that no other clerks would be allowed to work under.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: They are better housed than the Irish tenant farmers.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid he desired to protest against the language used on
      816
      this subject by hon. Members opposite, and he regretted that the Government were proposing to prepetuate a mistake in erecting a College of Science at Dublin, where it would not be used to the advantage of the people of Ireland.
      MR. CREANsaid that if the right hon. Member for South Antrim had looked at the plan for this new building he would have been very slow to make the speech he had done. He had been examining the plan and the absurdity of the proposed construction immediately struck him, for it was proposed to place the building as far back as they possibly could, with the result that it would be impossible to add to the size of the building after it had once been constructed. Such a scheme would not be tolerated either in England, Scotland, or Wales. Such a building ought to indicate the character and nature of the work which it was intended to perform, and a more absurd proposition could not be made by any Government. If the Government proposed to put such a plan into force in any other part of the kingdom it would be scouted out of the House and they would not dare to attempt to perpetrate such a monstrosity. He was not so much interested in this particular site in Dublin, but this college was not for Dublin alone, but for the whole of Ireland. Dublin was the centre of Ireland, and not Belfast, and it was absurd to think that the people from the South of Ireland would have to go to Belfast to attend the college. He did not know that the Government would have introduced such a Bill as this had not their prime object been to provide accommodation for officials who were under worked and overpaid. It was proposed to provide new officers for the Department of Agriculture, which so far as he could understand, was manned by officials with good salaries who were doing no particular good to the country. If they wanted to house the officials the proper thing would be to weed out those whose services could be very well done without, and thereby add to the accommodation of the really effective workers, if there were any, in the Department. He hoped that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would see the advisability of

      817
      postponing it, at least for the present. He would be very sorry if the question were put to a vote, for he would have no alternative but to vote against a scheme for the accommodation of Government clerks.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINappealed to the House to come to a decision now. He submitted that the discussion had gone far enough. [Nationalist cries of "No."]
      MR. BOLANDasked whether the site would be actually occupied by the projected College of Science. If it was clearly understood that the college would face Kildare Street, and occupy a good position from an architectural point of view, he thought a decision could be very quickly come to. Anyone who had read the evidence with regard to technical instruction given before the present University Commission would recognise that a properly equipped College of Science in Dublin was a matter of the very greatest importance. The Irish representatives would be extremely sorry if, on account of some mistake or misunderstanding about the site, this very necessary work should be delayed.
      MR. JOHN GORDONsaid they were all agreed that a College of Science ought to be built in Dublin. He believed also that Belfast had claims for consideration in the matter and he would support anything that could be done to promote scientific instruction there. He had a sincere desire to have this matter brought to a happy issue. It was said that the north side of the city was the place to select for the College of Science. He thought that of all places in Dublin that could have been selected the site proposed was the very best. It was close to the Museum and the National Library, both of which were institutions which were most necessary for furthering the interests of the College of Science. It was not quite correct to speak of the place being approached by a narrow lane. On the other hand, he did not think it was right that the front of the building should be excluded from view by retaining the old houses. He agreed with the Member for South Antrim that
      818
      it would not be satisfactory to have science taught in back premises. The College of Science ought to be a handsome structure in a place where it would command attention. He should be very glad if the Financial Secretary could see his way to state that the buildings facing Upper Merrion Street would be removed in order that the college would be visible to everyone. If the college was put in a proper position, the site selected would afford ample space for the extension of the institution to meet future requirements. Whether the people approved of the Local Government Board or not, it was there as a fact, and the staff who had to do the work ought to have proper accommodation. He did not know what proportion of the money that would take. There was at present a College of Science in Dublin, and he had not heard how that building was to be utilised when the new college was built. If there was no good reason to the contrary, it might be given to the Local Government Board. That would solve the difficulty if it was practicable to carry out the suggestion. He did not think it was reasonable or sensible for hon. Members opposite to say that they ought to have the new College of Science which had long been promised, but that they would not have it if a few thousands were added to the cost of it for the purpose of housing the Local Government Board. The very fact of a very large building being put in Dublin would give much needed employment to large numbers of men in Dublin, and operate in favour, not only of the people of that city, but of every part of Ireland. Therefore he asked hon. Members opposite to withdraw their opposition to the Motion before the House. On the other hand he urged the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give an assurance that the old buildings on the site would be removed, so that the college, when erected, should have a fine open space in front of it.
      MR. LEAMYsaid that there were two questions involved in the discussion: first, the amount of money that was to be spent, and, second, the site of the College of Science. The

      819
      Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that a certain sum was to be spent in the purchase of houses at Mention Street to turn them into offices for the Local Government Board, but he would not tell the House what the amount would be. The owners of these houses were professional men, and they would go before the arbitrators under the Lands Clauses Act and get the highest possible price for them, including compensation for compulsory purchase. If it was necessary to get new offices for the Local Government Board why did not the Government go to Lower Gardiner Street, where they could purchase houses for offices at a fourth of the price they would have to pay in Merrion Street? The rentals of the houses in Merrion Street were £95, £120, £92 10s., £76, £65, £65, £55, £50, £60, while the rentals of the houses in Lower Gardiner Street near the Customs House which might be acquired, and which would afford as much accommodation as those in Merrion Street, were £18, £20, £43, £27, £27 and £38. As to the question of site, he must say that personally he liked it. The noble Lord opposite who had spoken in such a friendly way had made out a strong case for it, as it would provide for the future extension, not only of the college but of the museum buildings. If the present project was carried out, there would not be room for the extension of the buildings in the future, which would be a grievous mistake. There were many handsome buildings in Dublin already, but he would like to see another with a fine facade and a clear, open space in front.
      MR. WOLFFsaid that with almost all that had been said on the opposite side of the House he entirely agreed. If a new Science College was to be built in Dublin it would be a pity that it should not be put in a position to be seen, and in which it might be an ornament to the city. What he objected to was that the College of Science was to be in Dublin at all; and he wished to enter his protest against expending £225,000 on a College of Science in a situation where it would be of little or no benefit. Of course, he regretted as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite that there were no
      820
      shipyards or great manufactories in Dublin, or Cork, or Waterford, and other parts of Ireland, but they knew that there were none, and the college should be erected in Belfast, where there was a demand for it. It would be a mistake to place it in Dublin simply because that city was the capital of Ireland.
      MR. POWERthought that the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman who had raised the discussion on this Bill, and especially to the hon. Member for the College Green Division. The title of the Bill seemed to him to be a misnomer, for it appeared to be designed to provide offices for the Local Government Board rather than buildings for the college of science. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim was most extraordinary, for he laid down the doctrine that it was not in the interests of the capital of Ireland that public money should be wasted on the erection of what he called architectural mostrosities. This was essentially an Irish debate, and it was strange that those who were responsible for the Government of Ireland were conspicuous by their absence. The point raised by the noble Lord opposite as to the necessity for making provision for the future extension of the college buildings was important. They all hoped that the classes in the college would be largely availed of, and he was certain that soon additional space would be required for expansion. This Bill represented to a great extent the mode in which they were governed in Ireland. It took back with one hand what was given with the other. That was not the opportunity for discussing the merits or demerits of the Local Government Board, but he did not think that the Irish Members would be justified in encouraging a body which was so anti-Irish in all its sentiments and transactions. There was another feature in connection with the proposed buildings which seemed extraordinary. There was not a town in England where, if a post office was to be erected, the local authority would not be consulted directly or indirectly; and certainly the local representative would be consulted. But in connection with the structure of this new College of

      821
      Science, which they all hoped would do something to improve the appearance of Dublin, neither the municipality nor any other local authority had been consulted. Not a single one of the representatives of Dublin or any other part of Ireland had been consulted directly or indirectly in the matter. That was the usual policy of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, and of embodying objecttionable provisions in an otherwise acceptable measure. It would be better to postpone the matter for some years than to dump down a building which would
      not beautify the city and which would be inconvenient to the citizens generally. The question had not been sufficiently considered, and, therefore, he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend which would afford an opportunity for further consideration, and prevent money being lavishly spent on an unsightly building.
      (5.18.) Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 182).

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex E.

      Denny, Colonel

      Johnston, William (Belfast)

      Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

      Dickinson, Robert Edmond

      Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

      Aird, Sir John

      Dickson, Charles Scott

      Kenyon-Slaney, Col W. (Salop.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

      Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

      Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

      Doughty, George

      Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Lawson, John Grant

      Austin, Sir John

      Doxford, Sir William Theodore

      Legg, Col. Hon. Heneage

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

      Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

      Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

      Bain, Colonel James Robert

      Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Baird, John George Alexander

      Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

      Long, Col. Charles W (Eversham

      Baldwin, Alfred

      Fardell, Sir. T. George

      Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

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

      Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

      Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

      Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

      Finch, George H.

      Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

      Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

      Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

      FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

      Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

      Bartley, George C. T.

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

      Flannery, Sir Fortescue

      MacIver, David (Liverpool)

      Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

      Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Bignold, Arthur

      Forster, Henry William

      M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

      Bill, Charles

      Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

      Majendie, James A. H.

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Galloway, William Johnson

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

      Bond, Edward

      Garfit, William

      Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

      Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

      Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Brassey, Albert

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

      Milvain, Thomas

      Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

      Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

      Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

      Brotherton, Edward Allen

      Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

      Morgan, David J. (Walth'st'w

      Butcher, John George

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

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Carlile, William Walter

      Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

      Morrison, James Archibald

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

      Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

      Gretton, John

      Mount, William Arthur

      Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

      Greville, Hon Ronald

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

      Cayzer, Sir Charles William

      Groves, James Grimble

      Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Gunter, Sir Robert

      Newdigate, Francis Alexandra

      Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

      Hain, Edward

      Nicholson, William Graham

      Chapman Edward

      Halsley, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

      Nicol, Donald Ninian

      Clive, Captain Percy A.

      Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

      Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

      Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

      Parks, Ebenezer

      Coddington, Sir William

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Percy, Earl

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      Heath, James (Stafford, N. W.

      Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

      Cohen, Benjamin Louis

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Platt-Higgins, Frederick

      Collings, Rt. Hon Jesse

      Helder, Augustus

      Plummer, Walter R.

      Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

      Hope, J. F. (Sheflield, Brightside

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

      Hornby, Sir William Henry

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

      Horner, Frederick William

      Purvis, Robert

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

      Hoult, Joseph

      Pym, C. Guy

      Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

      Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

      Rankin, Sir James

      Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

      Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

      Rattigan, Sir William Henry

      Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

      Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Cubitt, Hon. Henry

      Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

      Renshaw, Charles Bine

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

      Renwick, George

      Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

      Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

      Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thompson

      Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

      Ropner, Colonel Robert

      Stroyan, John

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

      Round, James

      Start, Hon Humphry Napier

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

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Rutherford, John

      Thorburn, Sir Walter

      Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

      Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

      Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

      Wrightson, Sir Thomas

      Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

      Valentia, Vicount

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Younger, William

      Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

      Warr, Augustus Frederick

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

      Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Simeon, Sir Barrington

      Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

      Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

      Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Spear, John Ward

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

      Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

      Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Philipps, John Wynford

      Allan, William (Gateshead)

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

      Holland, William Henry

      Price, Robert John

      Ambrose, Robert

      Jacoby, James Alfred

      Rea, Russell

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Joicey, Sir James

      Rigg, Richard

      Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

      Jones, David Bryumor (Swansea

      Schwann, Charles E.

      Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Burns, John

      Joyce, Michael

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Buxton, Sydney Charles

      Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Caldwell, James

      Lambert, George

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Cameron, Robert

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northa'ts

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Stevenson, Francis S.

      Causton, Richard Knight

      Leith, Sir Joseph

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Cawley, Frederick

      Leng, Sir John

      Sullivan, Donal

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Levy, Maurice

      Tennant, Harold John

      Crean, Eugene

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Lough, Thomas

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

      MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

      Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

      Delany, William

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

      Doogan, P. C.

      M'Crae, George

      Toulmin, George

      Duncan, J. Hastings

      M'Govern, T.

      Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

      Dunn, Sir William

      M'Kean, John

      Warner, Thomas Courteney T.

      Edwards, Frank

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

      Emmott, Alfred

      M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

      Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

      Farquharson, Dr. Robert

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

      Fenwick, Charles

      Lolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

      Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Flynn, James Christopher

      O'Brien, Kendall (Tipp'rary Mid

      Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudderf'd

      Furniss, Sir Christopher

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

      Young, Samuel

      Goddard, Daniell Ford

      O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      O'Malley, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

      Harmsworth, R. Leicester

      Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

      Sir Thomas Esmonde and

      Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

      Partington, Oswald

      Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

      Question put and agreed to.

      Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought it was most unsuitable that a Bill of this kind, affecting so deeply
      824
      Dublin and Ireland, should be referred to a hybrid Committee, of which the House was only to have the selection of three members. He did not know either why the Committee of Selection should appoint two. All that such a Committee would do would be to inquire into the compensation to be given for the sites, and such an idea was entirely foreign to the understanding upon which the Second Reading of the Bill had been given. The Bill had been read a second time on the understanding that the

      825
      Committee should decide on the whole principle of the scheme. The Committee now formally proposed by the Secretary to the Treasury would be the ordinary Select Committee such as was adopted in the case of railway, electric lighting, and other matters of that kind, which had no power to deal with general principles. This question ought not to be settled simply from the point of view of the compensation to be given for these sites, but from the point of view of the general scheme. It was also, he thought, very unfair that Irish Members in this House should have no representation upon a matter in which they were so greatly interested. He also complained of the form in which the Motion was moved. He thought the House ought to be told what was the view of the Government as to who the three members of the Committee were to be, and that the names ought to be given, and that a matter so much affecting Ireland ought not to be settled behind the backs of the Irish Members. He therefore moved that the Committee should be composed of fifteen Members, so that it might be possible for it to consider the whole question. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that he had only at present obtained a Vote for the sites, and that he had not obtained his Money Vote, and that unless some concessions were made which would enable the Irish Members to close their eyes to the more objectionable parts of this scheme they would be compelled to persist in their opposition, which would not facilitate matters so far as the hon. Gentleman was concerned.
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out the word 'Five.' and insert the word 'Fifteen.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
      Question proposed, "That the word Five' stand part of the Question."
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had put the Motion in this form because he thought he was thereby following the universal practice of the House; but he was quite willing to consent to the adjournment of the debate, with a view to inquiring whether some other form of Committee was possible which would give the Irish Members
      826
      further representation. At the same time the hon. and learned Member must understand that he could not alter the scheme in any way.
      MR. CLANCYmoved that the debate be now adjourned, and intimated that when the matter again came up for discussion he should move that the majority of the Committee should he composed of Irish Members.
      Debate adjourned till Monday next.

      POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
      [SECOND READING.]
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned debate on Question [5th May], "That the Bill ho now read a second time."
      Question again proposed.
      MR. CALDWELLdrew attention to the absence from the Bill of any clauses affording protection to the County Councils in the matter of breaking up the streets. He said he had no doubt the Secretary to the Treasury would have had this matter under consideration, and he might be able to say whether he could see his way to put some clause into the Bill which would preserve the rights of the County Councils, which had always been preserved in previous Bills, with regard to the breaking up of streets. No doubt the Post Office and the County Councils would work harmoniously together, but at the same time the rights of the County Councils ought to be preserved. He contended that substantial reasons should be given if the ordinary practice was not to be adopted. Then with regard to the works at Dulwich and Oxford Street, the House was entitled to have some information as to the estimated cost of the buildings and so on. One of his reasons for bringing these matters before the House was that Departments were apt to think they could get their Bills through very easily, and, in consequence, to be less particular as to the nature of the transactions. It was, therefore, well to ask for information, to let the officials know that such matters would not be allowed to pass sub silentio.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid his experience had not been such as to

      827
      make him think it an easy matter to get Bills through the House, or to encourage Departments unnecessarily to put Bills into his hands with a view to their passage into law. In his view, more harm was likely to be done by Bills being kept back because of the difficulty of getting them through the House, than by measures passing too easily. As to the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire, he was quite willing to insert the clauses to which he had referred. The reason they were not inserted in the first instance was that the local authorities concerned had had the Bill communicated to them, and were perfectly satisfied with it as it stood. The only objection to the insertion of the clauses was that it was never desirable to cumber a Bill with unnecessary provisions. That, however, was no reason why they should not be inserted in this case if the hon. Member desired them to be, and, although not pledging himself to the exact wording, he would see that substantially they were inserted in Committee, unless in the meantime he was released from the undertaking. As to the property at Dulwich, that was a very small affair. It was a vacant site, belonging to the trustees of Alleyn's charity. The buildings would cost probably about £2,000, and the site was not likely to be costly. The site off Oxford Street was a much more expensive matter. The buildings at present occupied by the Post Office on lease were to be purchased, with other shops and houses, for the purpose of necessary extensions. The existing accommodation was small even for the present business, but, in addition to that, a telephone exchange was to be established at the office. It was impossible to give any reliable estimate as to the cost of the buildings to be erected, as the plans were not yet worked out in sufficient detail. The amount to be spent on alterations in the old buildings was £3,000 or £4,000, from which it might be gathered that the cost of the new buildings would come to a much larger sum.
      Ordered, that all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
      Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
      Ordered that Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

      NEW FOREST (SALE OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES) BILL.
      [SECOND READING.]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      MR. CALDWELLpointed out that the measure was drawn in an unusual form. The Bill gave extensive powers to appropriate a part of the New Forest for certain purposes. If those powers were given in the form proposed the matter would never come before Parliament again. It was an extraordinary state of things, in a Bill dealing with public land, to empower a Department to give as much or as little as it pleased according to its own judgment. Parliament ought to have control in one of two ways. Either a scheme should be laid before the House, or the matter should be proceeded with by Provisional Order. The latter would be the usual statutory form, and would give an opportunity for the question to be discussed in the House if necessary.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Bill was urgently needed to meet the special requirements of a particular locality. They could not so easily get a proper system of sewage unless they could buy for that purpose a small portion of the forest land. He agreed that they ought to regard with extreme jealousy any proposal to sell, or any proposal to allow to pass out of public control, any portion of land like the New Forest, and this Bill had been strictly limited to purposes of urgent public necessity. At Lyndhurst the sewage system was in a very bad

      829
      condition, and an outbreak last year I brought this matter under the attention of the Local Government Board, and this district was threatened with a worse state of things in the future if something was not done. It was said that, owing to the lie of the land, they could not have a proper system of sewage without using part of the forest land, and if that was proved to be true, he thought they were bound to allow some part of the forest to be taken. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Commons Preservation Society, and one or two other Members had spoken on behalf of that body. He had communicated with this society, and he thought he was stating no more than the fact when he said that the Commons Preservation Society, after investigating the matter, were perfectly willing that the Bill should go through in its present form provided it was not widened or extended. He should object himself to any moving of Amendments in the direction of extending the Bill. He thought this measure should be limited strictly to what was necessary to secure the health of the people living in the district. Therefore the only point was as to whether, in addition to the securities contained in the Bill, there should also be a Provisional Order. He hoped that suggestion would not be pressed. The Bill already provided that an inquiry was to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, and before him anybody might appear to give evidence on the one side or the other; the inspector had to be satisfied that the land was required, that it was suitable both in amount and situation, that the local authority could not acquire land for the purpose outside the forest, and that the land was to be devoted strictly to necessary purposes. Having provided for local inquiries whore all the local interests could be heard, he thought they had amply protected the forest against being filched away. As this course would involve some considerable expense, he deprecated putting upon them the further expense involved in obtaining a Provisional Order, and he did not think it was necessary to do this in order to protect the public interest. It had been his desire throughout to limit this Bill to what was strictly necessary for the health of the localities concerned, and to
      830
      give up no part of the forest except upon proved necessity, and even then only to give up the smallest portion which would satisfy those needs. The hon. Member opposite had observed that there was no compulsion on the Commissioners to sell, but at the present time they were unable to sell; this Bill was intended to give them the power to sell, but it did not bind them to sell in any ease at all.
      MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that in the main no one could complain of the speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury or as to the way the Bill was drawn. There was one phrase in the Bill which provided that land was only to be taken when immediately required "in the interests of the public health of the locality." He agreed that Lyndhurst was in an unfortunate position right in the heart of the New Forest, and was entitled to reasonable consideration in regard to everything appertaining to public health. He could, however, give the hon. Gentleman cases in which local authorities had interpreted "the interests of public health" very widely indeed, and he would suggest that the Bill should make it clear that the narrowest interpretation was to be given to this phrase. If Lyndhurst wanted a new system of sewage, that was so eminently reasonable that the House of Commons ought not to object to it, but if it was going to link up its sewage system with four or five other districts to establish a combined sewage farm out of forest land because private land was dearer, that would be a totally different matter. He hoped "public health" would not be construed as meaning the provision of such things as watersheds and gasworks. He had known "public health" to be so construed as to include watersheds, joint sewage farms, gasworks, and recreation grounds.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not the local authority which will be the final judge in such a matter, but the Local Government Board has to be satisfied upon this point.
      MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was convinced from the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury that he had within his mind some of the fears he had just mentioned. Some local authorities had interpreted

      831
      public health to mean such things as he had alluded to. He would suggest that Lyndhurst should have every opportunity for getting out of its sanitary and other difficulties, and that no obstacles should be placed in the way of accomplishing this. He agreed that Lyndhurst should be charged a reasonable sum for the land taken from the forest, but Lyndhurst should not be allowed to link up with other districts for the purposes of establishing a joint sewage farm by appropriating land from the forest simply because it was public land and could be secured very cheaply.
      Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
      Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
      Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

      ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
      [SECOND READING.]
      Order for Second Beading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      Mr. CALDWELLsaid this Bill was rather of a technical character. If it did what the memorandum said it was intended to do, then he should say that it was a very proper Bill to pass. They had got the electric lighting Orders as they existed before the Act of 1899. If this Bill was to alter the old boundaries so as to make them co-equal with the new boundaries, that would be a proper proposal, and that object was given as the reason and purpose of this Bill. But this measure did nothing of the kind, and it would leave the boundaries in a worse condition after this Bill was passed than they were at the present time.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, no.
      MR. CALDWELLsaid the President of the Board of Trade cried out "No, no," but this Bill would not make the boundaries co-extensive, and co-equal with the existing boundaries. If the district was situated outside a borough authorised to supply electricity within the borough, a particular course was to be taken, but if the Borough Council was not authorised to supply electricity in the borough, then the outside district had to apply for a supply of electricity to a company authorised to supply it within the borough. Then there was a third contingency that might arise in the case of London, whore an area of supply adjoined a transferred area. The hon. Member referred to the difficulties which were likely to result from the working of the measure on account of the provisions laid down with respect to the fixing of the areas of supply, and of settlement of questions with relation to the title of Borough Councils and private companies to supply outside areas with electricity. He pointed out the differences between the present Bill and the, Electric Lighting (London) Bill, 1901 (Bill No. 124). He ventured to say that the Bill of last year dealt in a more effective manner with the great question of areas than the Bill now before the House, because it recognised the fact that if they were going to make the boundaries co-extensive and co-equal with the new areas, they must buy out those who supplied the outside areas. There was a proper clause in last year's Bill which provided that where an area was transferred under the powers conferred, the council or company to whom it was transferred should take over the concern from the council or company from whom it was transferred and pay a price fixed by arbitration. He ventured to say that that was the only suitable way of making the boundaries co-extensive and co-equal with the new boundaries. He generally found that a second Bill was better than the first, but he did not think that was so in this case. There was a proviso in the present Bill which was not in that of last year, namely, that the provisions of the Act should not apply in the case of areas

      833
      where the mains had been laid down before 1st January, 1902. He did not know the reason why that date had been fixed. He pointed out that it was proposed to give great powers to the Board of Trade under Section (b) of Clause 4 which was not in the Bill of last year. It provided—
      "If any question arises under this Act with reference to any transfer under this Act for the supply of electricity in any area transferred under this Act, such question shall he referred to, and determined by, the Board of Trade."
      That gave universal power to the Board of Trade. The whole object of the Bill was not to make boundaries co-equal and co-extensive but to give general and absolute powers to the Board of Trade to confirm agreements. There was no obligation on any one to make agreements unless they read Clause 9 as giving full power to determine everything and anything. Every electric company had a Provisional Order which fixed its boundaries, and if the Government wished to alter what had been done they should do it by Provisional Order.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was quite true, as the hon. Member had said, that this Bill was in a manner consequential on the London Government Bill of 1899. The hon. Member complained that the Bill did not go far enough. If the memorandum implied that every single adjustment that was required to make the boundaries of electrical areas conterminous with the boundaries of municipalities was carried out in the Bill, he admitted that the memorandum conveyed an inacurate impression. It was not his intention that the Bill should go as far as that. The real object of the Bill was to make adjustments where they were practically of a non-contentious character. When this matter was examined two years ago, there were 216 alterations of area which had been made by the Commissioners under the Act of 1899 which would possibly come under the operation of this Bill. Of that number about 179 related to small areas where no electrical works had been executed, and inquiry satisfied him that in almost all of these cases no controversy would arise. There were other cases in which undoubtedly controversy would arise, and he had altered the Bill of
      834
      this year, as compared with the Bill of last year, in such a way as not to render compulsory in certain cases the alterations which would have been compulsory under the Bill of last year. He did that deliberately, in order to avoid matters which might be so controversial as to imperil the passage of the Bill. All the non-controversial cases were still included, and he imagined that these would be 170 out of, perhaps, 216, unless in the interval works had been begun in any of these places. It was clearly advantageous that this Bill should pass this year, because in each succeeding year there was an additional possibility that electrical works would be laid down in areas at present non-controversial, which might then become contentious. With regard to changes of a controversial character, the Bill left the parties concerned to make such arrangements as they thought proper, and gave the Board of Trade power to give those agreements beween the parties the force of law. The Bill did not give the Board of Trade extravagant powers such as the hon. Gentleman imagined. The Board of Trade would have no power in controversial cases to force arrangements on the parties. The Board merely had power to confirm any arrangements to which the parties might come. In regard to non-controversial areas, at all events, the Bill would have a useful and valuable effect, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.
      MR. BOUSFIELDsaid there was a danger of want of elasticity in the Bill. There were cases in which it was desirable that an authority supplying electricity in one area should be allowed to supply electricity in part of an adjoining area. He trusted it would be considered in Committee as to whether that was not desirable; and whether authorities should not have power to enter into agreements for that purpose. He knew of at least two instances where it would be most, inconvenient for electric light to be supplied to a district from the station in its own area, and it could be most conveniently supplied by the station in an adjoining area.

    SUPPLY [18TH APRIL]—REPORT.
    Resolutions reported—
    SUPPLY [18TH APRIL]—REPORT.

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,411,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and working expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,961,815, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the collection of the Post Office Revenue."
      Resolutions read a second time.
      Second Resolution—
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      MR. WEIRcomplained that the Post Office had not taken advantage of the new railway to Mallaig to accelerate the mail service to the western islands. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that in 1896 the Government granted£260,000 for a railway which was to open up the western islands and develop the fisheries, and other purposes; and the people of the islands had been very disappointed that the Post Office had failed to take advantage of the new route, for the purpose of accelerating the transit of the mails. He asked the hon. Gentleman to bring pressure to bear upon the North British Railway Company, which, he thought, had treated the Post Office and the public in a most unsatisfactory manner.
      MR. O'MARAsaid he had some time ago presented an extensively-signed petition from the people of Mullinavat asking for increased
      836
      postal and telegraphic facilities. With regard to telegraphic facilities, something had been done; but with regard to postal facilities, the Post Office had decided that they could not afford to give what was asked for. Mullinavat was a large and important district, and deserved better treatment than it received. Two days were required to convey letters to and from the county town, which was only ten miles away. In spite of the reply he had received to his petition, he felt compelled, under all the circumstances, to bring this matter before the House, in the hope that the hon. Gentleman would endeavour to remedy what undoubtedly was an admitted grievance.
      MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEdrew attention to the fact that, although within forty miles of London, the large agricultural community in his constituency complained that they could not obtain copies of the daily Press and keep themselves in touch with the current prices in London, owing to the fact that the mails left London just before the London papers were published, and the Post Office authorities did not consider the district of sufficient importance to justify a second delivery. This was a real grievance, because it was necessary for the farmers in this district to keep in touch with the London prices, as well as those of the immediate district. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would see his way to put an end to this state of things and give them better postal facilties.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid he wished for a few moments to invite the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the cause of postmen on fixed wages. As the hon. Gentleman was no doubt aware, there were some thousands of these men in the employment of the Post Office receiving a weekly salary in Ireland of 15s. and in the rest of the United Kingdom of 16s. Now, surely that was a wage which the Post Office ought not to offer to any man who held the position of a postman. Even for unskilled labour it was too low a rate of remuneration, and it must be evident that in the case of a man with a family such a wretched pittance must often involve pangs of hunger. That was not the only grievance which

      837
      rural postmen laboured under. Should one of them unfortunately become ill, and should he be attached to a Post Office where no Government medical officer was employed, he had to find out of his wretchedly low wage not only the cost of medical attendance, but he was called upon to send in weekly a medical certificate as to the state of his health. How on earth could he afford to pay for such a certificate out of his 15s. or 16s. a week? He did hope that the Secretary to the Treasury would investigate these matters, and see if he could not possibly hold out some prospect of an increase of wages. Let him remember and try to realise what was the lot of the rural postman. It was a hard life. He had to trudge the roads in all seasons, he was exposed to all kinds of weather, however inclement, and often he was occupied for from twelve to fourteen hours daily. Was it not a monstrous thing that the Post Office should expect men to do such work for such a miserable wage, and was the hon. Gentleman aware that this system of making appointments at a fixed wage had been recently re-introduced on an extended scale, notwithstanding the fact that the Tweedmouth Committee had condemned it? There was one other point to which he wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury, and, through him, of the Postmaster General. Very recently a new regulation had been issued on the subject of special leave. Now, postmen and other classes of officials employed by the Department had secured the right to federate and organise, and their right to do so had been recognised by the authorities. The postmen had a federation, with a membership of 25,000, and, of course, there was a great deal of work to do in connection with that organisation. Its affairs were administered by an executive of sixteen men, drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom. In the early days of its existence, and, indeed, until very recently, men were allowed special leave to the extent of from twenty-five to thirty days per year in order to enable them to do work of their Federation. The meetings of their executive were held at different places, and often entailed very long journeys, while a large amount of business had to be transacted. Under the new regulations which had been promulgated, the amount of special leave
      838
      allowed to any one man had now been limited to ten days, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that that amount of time was absolutely inadequate for the proper working of the organisation. A suggestion had been made that at least twenty days leave should be granted, and he did not think there was anything unreasonable in that. It should be remembered that the Post Office were not put to any expense in the matter. If a man obtained special leave in order to attend the Federation business, he had to provide a substitute, to be approved by his superior officials, to do his duty during his absence, and he himself had to pay that substitute. The Department was not put to the expense of a single penny, and under the circumstances he could not understand why there had been a curtailment of the privilege to ten days. Was there any reason whatever why the limit should not be extended to twenty days? He failed to see any. He would again urge the Secretary to the Treasury to give his earnest attention to the questions he had brought under his notice, and especially to the subject of fixed wage appointments. Many of the men who were appointed under this system were old soldiers, and had families to support, and he did think it was monstrous that they should receive such a wretchedly low wage. The Department ought literally to be ashamed of itself, and it certainly need not accentuate the grievance by insisting that when a man was unfortunately ill he should be put to the expense of sending in a medical certificate signed by a private practitioner as to the state of his health. He was sure the hon. Gentleman must sympathise with the hard lot of these men, and he trusted that he would see his way to hold out to them some prospect of amelioration, so that they might be encouraged to become more attentive and more zealous in the discharge of their duties. They often had charge of letters of great value. As a body they were faithful and honest men, and they ought not to be subjected to the temptation which undoubtedly a man on 16s. a week had to contend against.
      DR. AMBROSEwanted to know the reason why not a stone of

      839
      the new Post Office building at Mullinavat bad been laid, although its erection had been promised two years ago.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Most of the points raised by the hon. Members are matters for personal communication rather than for debate in this House. I desire to give the fullest information possible, and to satisfy hon. Members that the Post Office is doing its best. I do not think, however, that it is expected of me that I should give, without previous notice, details of the postal arrangements in the most remote parishes in the country. I do not know what the standard of the hon. Member for West Mayo may be, but I imagine, judging by population and the amount of correspondence, that Mullinavat is not the most important town in Ireland. If the hon. Member will put his complaint in writing, I will inquire into it. I will communicate with the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division on the point he raised. A question was put to me by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty with which I am able to deal, because I have had so many complaints from him as to the deficiencies in the mail facilities to the Western Highlands and Islands, I have never pretended that the present mail arrangements are in all respects satisfactory, but unfortunately the Postmaster General has not the powers which the hon. Gentleman seems to conceive he has. The North British Railway Company's light railway to Mallaig was not constructed on postal grounds, and it is impossible for me, at the present time, to impose conditions on the Railway Company after the money voted by Parliament for that railway has been paid over. The whole question of postal communication with the Western Highlands and Islands is extremely difficult, and I do not think we should gain anything if we forced the carriage of the mails on to a new line instead of the present one. The Postmaster General will, however, lose no opportunity that may come in his way to improve the service, if that can be done without unduly burdening the Post Office. The hon. Member for West Wicklow has complained of the remuneration given to rural postmen both in Ireland and in this country. He spoke of them having to work very long hours at a wage of 15s. in Ireland, and 16s. in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think
      840
      he is under some misapprehension as to the number of hours these men work. At any rate, a good deal of the time they are off duty. It sometimes happens that a man has a walk to reach the limit of which only takes up a short time, and yet he has to remain at the end of it the greater part of the day, returning only in the evening with the letters which have been posted during the day. Many of these men have occupations of their own, and utilise their spare time in pursuit of them, and it cannot therefore be said that they spend the day in the service of the Post Office. In any case, we have, in fixing the wages, to look at the nature of the employment, and to have regard to the rate of remuneration for nearly similar employment outside the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a wage of 15s. or 16s. a week as not being a living wage. I at once grant that we ought to treat rural postmen, as all other servants of the State, fairly, having regard to the nature of their employment. But any desire I might have to be generous at the expense of the general taxpayer of the country is necessarily checked by my feeling of responsibility toward the taxpayer. I have no right to unnecessarily burden him in order to confer exceptional favours upon Government servants.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: You tax him in order to give doles to the landlords.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think we need enter into that subject now. I come next to the question raised by the hon. Member with regard to the requirement of weekly medical certificates when a postal servant is sick. I would like to point out that sick leave on a very generous scale is given in the Post Office, and in no service in the world is it possible to accept the mere ipse dixit of an official that he is ill and unable to discharge his duty. We must guard the public service against malingering, and the only way in which we can do that is by insisting on having a medical certificate. It is not possible for the Post Office to have medical officers of its own in all parts of the country. Where we have one, our

      841
      employees get free medical attendance. But in other cases they have to call in their own medical officer.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Are not all the higher officials in the Post Office supplied with free medical service?
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: At certain offices every servant is entitled to free medical attendance; but at other offices, where we have no Departmental medical officer, they have to find their own medical attendants. There only remains the question of special leave for me to deal with. The hon. Member asked if I could see my way to recommending that officials of the Post Office who desire to attend meetings of the Executives of the various postal trade unions should be given twenty days special leave for that purpose, in the course of a year, instead of the ten days now allowed. No, Sir, I do not think I can hold out any hope that the Postmaster General will modify the regulation which he has recently issued. Let the House bear in mind that these servants of the Post Office have a fortnight's leave on full pay in the course of twelve months. And, in addition to that fortnight, which they may employ in any manner they like, they are allowed to take not more than ten days special leave, for which they get no pay, and during which they have to provide a substitute. Although the Post Office may not lose pecuniarily by their absence from duty, it does lose in efficiency if some of its servants are constantly away from their regular employment, doing work outside the Post Office. I think it is not too much to ask, when we give fourteen days leave on full pay and ten days special leave without pay, that the councils of these various unions should, on their part, so arrange their meetings as to enable the members to attend them without further interference with the discharge of their duty to the Post Office. It is a not ungenerous arrangement which we have made, and I can assure the House that the Postmaster General feels bound, in the interests of the efficiency of the service, to maintain in force this special leave regulation.
      MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had referred to many postal grievances to which attention had often been drawn in that House, but he could not find in any of his remarks any fresh argument in support of the present arrangements, which, as far as the postal service was concerned, were felt in many respects to be the source of much injustice. The first argument he put forward was that he could not be expected to be generous as regards the pay of postal servants at the expense of the general taxpayer. The answer to that was clear. The State ought to be a model employer. They did not ask for excessive wages, but they did demand that Post Office servants should receive remuneration on a par with that paid for similar work by outside bodies or persons. They felt very strongly on this question. They were of opinion that an increase of pay would not necessarily involve any addition to the burden of the taxpayers. It could be covered by the better administration of the Department. Those who took an interest in the great army of postal employees were well aware there were numerous cases in which, by a change of regulations and the introduction of small reforms, most irritating and most unreasonable conditions imposed upon the men might be got rid of. They thought that the best means—the most expeditious and the most equitable manner of ascertaining the true facts—would be the appointment of a Committee to investigate the whole of the circumstances. They were always told, when they asked for such a Committee, that they had already had one, and that the findings of the Tweedmouth Committee had established finality. But he would remind his hon. friend that there could be no real defence of that statement, because a very few months after that Committee had reported, the Postmaster General, the representatives of the men, and a number of the Members of this House, were closeted together in a Committee room in order to revise the findings of the Committee. Surely circumstances had arisen during the four or five years which had since elapsed to justify reconsideration of the whole position. There was very substantial proof

      843
      that the conditions under which a great number of men in the postal service now lived had materially altered in that time. Rents had risen considerably, as was shown by figures relating to parts of the metropolis which were largely populated by postal employees which he had recently quoted to the House. Yet the Department had taken no account of that fact, and whenever an appeal was made to it they received nothing but vague assurances that all was well. Those who desired to secure the efficiency of the public service, and that the State should employ willing and satisfied servants, would cont nue to press for the appointment of a Select Committee, and he believed that in the long run they would get the satisfaction to which they were entitled. There were a great number of other matters connected with postal administration with which he would like to deal, and he would not have ventured to trespass on the time of the House in regard to them had it been possible to get anything like direct information on the subject from the hon. Gentleman who represented the Postmaster General in that House. He felt bound to take that opportunity of again drawing attention to the very great public inconvenience which occurred, and the large inroads made upon the time of the House, by the absence from it of the Postmaster General, who was the Minister in charge of the third largest spending Department of the State. So long as his hon. friend was in the unpleasant position of having to represent the Postmaster General, so long would there be a feeling that they could not criticise sufficiently the administration of the Department or get satisfactory replies to the cases they advanced. He spoke of the position of the hon. Gentleman as being unpleasant, for he could imagine nothing could be more unpleasant than to have to deal with answers to questions in respect of matters with which he had no discretion. If he were to exercise any discretion, or to give a distinct pledge or assurance, he would at once be trenching upon the Ministerial responsibility of the Postmaster General. There had been many protests made in that House as to the absence from it of the Minister responsible for the administration of the Post
      844
      Office, and he would remind hon. Members that when they had the Postmaster General in the House of Commons, as in the case of Mr. Raikes, postal questions were promptly and efficiently dealt with, not only to the satisfaction of Members interested in the subject, but, above all, to the satisfaction of Post Office servants themselves. The arrangement was conducive in the fullest sense to the efficiency of the service, and advantageous to the trade of the country and the empire. He had on one or two occasions brought under the notice of the hon. Gentleman the question of the regulations imposed upon those postal employees who belonged to the Volunteer force. He had never as yet been able to get a satisfactory answer, and he was tempted to ask if the time was not coming when it would be necessary for the Postmaster General to lay down a rule that postal servants should not be Volunteers. Under the new regulations a postal servant had to find a substitute when he desired to do his duty as a Volunteer, and to attend the annual trainings of his regiment. Many of these men were in receipt of a wage of 18s. a week, but very often it cost as much as 30s. to provide a substitute, because in that case they had to pay on the basis of time and a quarter for the performance of such duties by a substitute. The result was that, while giving their time and energy to the service of their country as Volunteers, they had to pay money out of their own pockets, and it must be well known that men getting but 18s. a week had scarcely any chance of saving, and were not likely to have any funds to draw upon to provide substitutes whilst they were undergoing their military training. The Postmaster General ought to set an example to all other employers, and to give facilities to the men in his Department to serve in the ranks of the auxiliary forces. He had a still stronger ground of complaint. A certain number of postal servants had served in the Army and passed into the reserve, and had been called upon to rejoin the colours during the present war. Notices were issued by the Postmaster General, and posted in numerous offices throughout the kingdom, asking other men not Army Reservists to volunteer for active service,

      845
      and describing the terms of remuneration as well as the condition under which at the close of the war they would be allowed to return to their situations in the Post Office. A number of men, on the faith of those promises, proceeded to the seat of war. And what did they find? Some of them were only paid at the rate of 1s. a day, whereas and again others ordinary line pay plus engineers' pay others received 5s. daily; the consequence was that many of them felt that they were unfairly treated, and rightly looked to the Postmaster General to exercise his influence with the Secretary for War to secure for them fair all - round treatment. The Postmaster General simply shrugged his shoulders, and said it had nothing to do with him, as it was a matter which solely concerned the War Office. But he would tell him that private employers had successfully intervened in such cases, and he held in his hand——
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of the Army pay given to postmen at the war does not arise on this Vote.
      MR. CLAUDEHAYsaid he, of course, accepted the ruling of the Speaker and would pass on to another branch of the postal difficulty. He had already alluded to the fact that they were unable in that House to get satisfactory replies to inquiries addressed to the Postmaster General. The practice was, when they put a general question, to ask for a detailed statement, and when they gave detailed a statement they simply received a general reply. At that he thought they had just cause to complain. Whenever he put a question he had always taken great pains to substantiate his facts, and it had been his unfortunate experience that he had never been able to get any acknowledgment from the Postmaster General that a grievance existed without first forwarding a series of long, argumentative letters, but he had succeeded in obtaining an acknowledgement from the Postmaster General that a reply given to him in the House was in correct.
      It being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    EVENING SITTING.

      STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st May], "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subsidies to steamship companies and sailing vessels under foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade."—(Sir William Walroud.)
      Question again proposed.
      MR. CALDWELLsaid this was a Motion to re-appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subsidies to steamship companies and sailing vessels under foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade. The Committee was first appointed on 23rd April last; it held eighteen sittings and examined twenty-two witnesses, and it had published the evidence it had taken. It was said recently that they were nearly at the end of their inquiry, and only proposed to examine two or three witnesses. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the terms of reference. The Committee was to report on the effect on British trade of subsidies to steamship companies and sailing vessels under foreign Governments. But it had been taking evidence as to the effect of these subsidies on British shipping, and he ventured to assert that had the House known the Committee would do that, it would never have appointed it. British trade was a thing quite distinct from British shipping. The country was, of course, peculiarly interested in the question of the prosperity of its trade; its wealth largely depended on its exports. But this Committee, instead of inquiring as to the effect of these subsidies on that trade, had held an inquiry, in the interests of British shipowners, as to whether British ships should not be subsidised in order to enable them to compete with foreign vessels. That was the tenour of the whole of the questions put by the Chairman and other members of the Committee. He would like to illustrate his point. The British shipowner naturally wished to get as high freights as he could, and to have his vessels well filled. He was not so much interested in the volume of

      847
      trade as in the rate of freight, whereas, on the other hand, the British trader was more interested in the volume of the trade of the country than in the question of high freights: the interests were, in fact, antagonistic. The evidence showed that subsidies to foreign vessels did not tend to keep down freights, yet the whole tendency of this inquiry had been in the interest of the British shipowner, and not in that of the trader. Hence he was opposing the re-appointment of this Committee by way of protest against the conduct of its members. Of the witnesses examined, six were Government officials, seven were British consuls, and seven were shipowners: only two were connected with British trade; one was connected with the trade of Zanzibar, and his evidence echoed the views of the shipowners as regarded Zanzibar; and the only witness representing British trade came from Manchester, and gave evidence as to freights for cotton goods which showed the difference between the interests of the shipowner and the trader. He pointed out that cotton goods were sent from America to Shanghai at 27s. 6d. per ton, whereas it cost 50s. a ton to send them from this country. It was only true that British trade was best promoted in British ships where freights were equal. The Committee had gone outside their reference. They had entered into an inquiry into the subsidies of British ships as armed cruisers. This had nothing to do with the question the Committee had to consider. The Committee's object was to make out and bolster up a case for an extension of the system of subsidies. The Committee had also taken up the subject of mail contracts with the same object.
      SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in order in saying the Committee is bolstering up a case for shipping subsidies when they have made no Report.
      MR. SPEAKER: They have not made a final Report, but they have made a Report—they have reported the evidence.
      MR. CALDWELLrepeated his charge, and, in support of it, declared that a combination of British shipowners had
      848
      succeeded in almost doubling the rates from Hamburg and other continental ports. [AN HON. MEMBER: That is not so.] Well, they had it in the evidence of Mr. Hill that the Norwegian Government fixed the rates, and a Norwegian Company had to carry goods at those frieghts. At first the Wilson Company tried to compete and keep up their rates, but eventually they had to come down to the level of the Norwegian Company, although they said it did not pay them.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going too far in discussing particular cases. I understand he is objecting to the re-appointment of the Committee on the ground that it has, in taking evidence, gone beyond the scope of its reference. He is entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to deal with the facts proved in the evidence with a view to testing their accuracy.
      MR. CALDWELLsaid he had been led into doing that by the interruptions to which he had been subjected. It was endeavoured to show at the inquiry that a combination of British shipowners had endeavoured to raise rates, and it was that which was causing Germany, Russia, and the United States to build ships of their own. [An HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.]
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! it is not in order to cry "Nonsense."
      MR. CALDWELLsaid the combination was doing more than anything else to dislocate the trade of this country. He could only repeat that the shipowners were directing the inquiry in their own interest, and their presence in such force that night was sufficient proof of it.
      MR. CHARLES WILSONsaid he could hardly imagine a more inopportune moment to bring forward such arguments as had been employed by his hon. friend. It appears to be the hon. Member's view that shipowners ought to be tabooed as much as possible. His own view was that never in the history of England had the shipping interest been of more importance

      849
      to this country than at the present time. What had it done? Personally, he was not one of those who had approved from many points of view of the war in South Africa, but still, if it had not been for our shipping interest, what would have happened? It was our splendid fleet of transports that had carried our Army in safety across the seas, a thing hitherto in its magnitude unknown in the history of the world. They were now asking for the renewal of the Committee on Subsidies. He had given evidence before it last year. His hon. friend's line of argument appeared to be that foreign nations were envious of our shipping and wished to drive it from their ports by granting subsidies, and that this competition re-acted favourably on British trade by lowering freights. Probably that was the case in almost every maritime country. In many instances that had already seriously affected our mercantile marine. Take Norway as a particular instance. He had been connected, through his firm for fifty years of his life, with the trade of that country. In no maritime country was there more jealousy of the British flag. We considered ourselves a maritime nation, but Norway especially considered she had a right to her trade on the high seas, and to displace the British flag. The Government of Norway, to protect their shipping, gave subsidies. They fixed certain rates of freight as part of the terms of the subsidies, no doubt making them unrermmerative to unsubsidised shipping. Also, their sailors got lower wages than ours, and they had not the same restrictions under the Board of Trade which we had. He was not complaining of those restrictions. He thought that in this country those restrictions had to an enormous extent been in favour of saving life at sea.
      They had very many dramatic scenes in older days in the House of Commons—especially one great scene that he was old enough to remember, and to know that good had resulted from it. Still, at the same time, we had restrictions, as we had expenses which some foreign nationalities had not. Naturally, if we were to continue the competition, we had to do the same thing, and carry at the same freights. He could say from his
      850
      own experience that as a result it had been difficult for British shipping to live in competition. But Englishmen did not like to give in, and certainly his firm would not. But supposing any British line of shipping had to succumb as a result of Foreign subsidies and was withdrawn, the freight was advanced again, and that benefit disappeared. This had only to be carried to its ultimate end—destroy one branch of British shipping after another, and practically destroy the great maritime power of this country, so it was a much bigger question than his hon. friend assumed. Personally, as a British shipowner, he should do what little he could to counteract the arguments of his hon. friend. We had at present one drawback in the question of light dues. German steamers running to America were, he believed, exempted from what were called tonnage dues, because the Germans did not charge light dues, while we did. Taking one case in connection with his own business, that made a difference of over £500 on one steamer in twelve months. It practically meant the difference between a profit and a loss. He asked the Government to relieve shipowners from light dues, which would carry a double advantage. He had not been there for some time, but the House had been exercised over the question of the American combination. The White Star Company had sold their entire fleet to the Morgan Syndicate, lock, stock, and barrel. Did we want this to extend, or did we not? If it was extended, it was the beginning of the decadence of British shipping, and without British shipping what would this country be? He was speaking as one intimately connected with British shipping for the last fifty years, and he had not heard one argument from the hon. Member which he was not surprised to hear coming from the Liberal Benches, and he did not think they would find favour even on the Government side of the House. He certainly hoped they would not. He hoped this Motion would be passed, and that it would be the inauguration from the present time of a determination to see that the interests of British shipping were paramount and of considerably more importance than during his time the House of Commons had ever considered them to be. One good thing might result from the attention which had been drawn to this subject by the American Syndicate.

      851
      It showed conclusively that we must take more interest in our shipping. We had a great example set us in Germany by the Kaiser, who did all in his power to foster German shipping. He did not think we could say that similar great influences operated in this country, but he trusted that the facts which had been disclosed would open the eyes of those who were interested in the maintenance of the power of England. He hoped that very little support would be given in that House to the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark.
      MR. EVELYN CECIL: As Chairman of the Committee on Steamship Subsidies last year, I think it will perhaps be convenient that I should intervene at this stage of the debate. I sh to deny altogether the allegation of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire that the appointment of this Committee has been promoted by shipowners.
      MR. CALDWELL: I did not say it had been promoted by shipowners. I said it had been promoted in the interests of the shipping trade.
      MR. EVELYN CECIL: The hon. Member evidently draws a distinction between British shipping and British trade. There may be, as is alleged, some antagonism in certain circumstances between British shipping and British trade; but, unquestionably, in the main, British trade has been in British ships, and if British shipping were by any chance to pass over to foreigners, I should like to ask the hon. Member where he thinks British trade would be. The hon. Member says this inquiry is merely intended to bolster up recommendations for British subsidies. Allow me to say that that is not in the least the object of this inquiry. This inquiry is determined to get at the bottom of circumstances which have arisen in connection with trade and shipping, and I am most anxious to deal with these questions impartially, to call witnesses of all shades of opinion, and to cover all the ground that is reasonably contained in this reference. Personally, I should not have had any objection if this reference had been somewhat larger. It would then have covered some of the technical objections raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire, and, if I am
      852
      permitted to deal with what is and what is not the extent of the terms of reference, I should like to call the attention of the House to two or three considerations connected therewith.
      The inquiry had not proceeded very far before I was brought face to face with one or two difficult points, upon which, as chairman, I was called upon to rule. The question very naturally arose at once as to whether this inquiry was to be limited somewhat in the direction sketched by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanarkshire, that is to say, limited to an inquiry into the sums granted by foreign Governments as steamship subsidies, which, after all, were easily obtainable from the commercial reports issued by the Foreign Office, or whether it was to be an inquiry of some real, substantial value, which should look at the question from a more general point of view. We inquired into the system of subsidies to steamship companies, and among others the Gorman companies: and we found that these subsidies to German companies were granted under express conditions. Let me inform the House of two or three conditions which are required by the German Government to be observed before such subsidies are paid to the companies. One article of the contract between the German Government and the North German Lloyd Company is that the steamers of the latter are to be built in German yards, as far as possible of German materials, according to the requirements of the German Admiralty, and the plans must be submitted to the German Chancellor. That raises the question of the mercantile marine available in time of war, and it was not possible wholly to exclude this question from the Committee's inquiry, seeing that it was an essential condition upon which the German Government gave the subsidy. Another condition is that the sale or hire of vessels to foreign countries is not allowed without permission of the German Imperial Chancellor. That raises a question which fringes upon the recent Atlantic "combination" and is a material matter for the inquiry. I do not think we can go into the whole question upon that article of the German contract, but the House will see that it does raise the question of sale to foreign countries of British ships, and

      853
      if this can be prevented by making it a condition upon which subsidies are granted to British owners that those ships shall not be sold to foreign countries, this is a point very material to our inquiry.
      Take another article imposed by the German Government on the North German Lloyd Company, which is that the rates of freight and fares cannot be changed without the consent of the Imperial Chancellor. That raises the question of through preferential rates and through bills of lading, which have a material effect on the increase or the decrease of British trade. This raises, to some extent, the question of shipping rates and shipping "rings" or conferences, because it is clear that if the rates are such as the German Chancellor does not approve of, he can compel those rates to be reduced to a lower figure, which will be more advantageous to the Government or the public. It would not be fair to contemplate recommending the subsidies to be granted, assuming for a moment that the Committee were to do so, if we felt that the money simply went to bolster up objectionable practices sometimes in favour with a shipping ring. Let us take another article. The German Government stipulate in granting subsidies that all adult deck hands and members of the engine-room staff engaged in Germany are to consist of men belonging to the naval reserve of Germany or persons who have contracted to serve under the Imperial Navy, if steamers are requisitioned, hired, or bought by the Gorman Government; and natives only are to be employed in the engine and boiler rooms, when employment of European firemen and stokers is inadvisable for sanitary reasons. Here, again, it is made an express condition in the granting of subsidies by the German Government that, if possible, the crews should be German crews. That raises to some extent the question whether crews in British subsidised ships should be British crews or not.
      Then there is another subject which, to my mind, necessarily comes in some degree within the scope of our inquiry. I allude to a class of matters, which I venture to call possible contributory causes, which affect British trade. There seemed to be many other causes besides subsidies which might affect British trade. If we
      854
      are told by witnesses of causes affecting British trade, I submit that the Committee must inquire into those causes so far as to be able to tell whether they are contributory causes or not. I do not propose that we should inquire elaborately into them, but I do not think we can shut our eyes to the fact that they may be causes very seriously affecting the granting of subsidies. Such things as the load-line regulations were mentioned, and the light dues have also been referred to. No doubt these have some effect upon British trade, and testimony has been borne to this fact by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is also stated that the Board of Trade regulations and restrictions are a cause affecting British trade. I do not say that this is within our terms of reference, but we cannot shut our eyes to the statements which have been made to us upon these points. We have been told that trade is affected by the regulations which countries like Russia and the United States adopt with regard to the coasting trade. For instance, Russia and the United States confine their coasting trade to their own vessels, and interpret the term coasting trade so widely that it includes a voyage from Odessa to Vladivostock, and from San Francisco to Honolulu. The Committee must, in my opinion, have their eyes not wholly fixed upon subsidies, but also consider other facts and circumstances which surround them.
      The House will not, I think, be disposed rigidly to limit the Committee to a very technical and scrupulous interpretation of the reference. We cannot put blinkers on our eyes, and keep looking at subsidies and subsidies alone, and take no consideration of any other matter which might materially affect the question. While we ought certainly to make subsidies the centre of our investigations, in some degree we ought to keep our wits alive to the fact that there are numerous other circumstances which affect British trade. I have endeavoured to conduct the inquiry on those lines, and I trust what I have done has been in accordance with the wishes of the House. The effect of enlarging the terms of reference will be that the inquiry will take very much longer. I hope that if this Committee is appointed we shall be able to report this session. As the

      855
      whole of the shipping question has come so much before the public in recent times, more especially during the last few months, I venture to think that the public will be very glad of some Report upon the evidence brought before us, and if it is thought that our Report does not cover the whole of the question, and that some of these matters require further inquiry, it is open to the Government and to the House to have that inquiry made. I am fully alive to the importance of every one of those questions which have been referred to. I dare say every one of them would be deserving of a Royal Commission to itself, and a Commission could be appointed expressly fitted to deal with any one of these special subjects. In conclusion, I repeat that, while I am anxious to keep these other considerations in mind, I think we should fix our attention in the main upon the question of steamship subsidies. Considering that the public require a Report as soon as possible, and that anything which is not reported upon can easily be inquired into by any other Committee, I hope the House will decide to allow us to consider this question without any further delay. It is almost unprecedented in the history of this House that a Committee such as this, which has taken two-thirds of its evidence, should be refused re-appointment. Its re-appointment ought to be almost a matter of form. I would suggest that the procedure on re-appointment of a Committee of this kind is quite as important and useful a matter for the First Lord of the Treasury to turn his attention to, when he is considering alterations of the rules of the House, as any other matter which has been before him.
      SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: The traders of this country would feel much more sympathy with complaints as to the disadvantages under which British shipowners labour if they felt that British shipowners acted fairly towards their own country. The shipping ring, which has been referred to, is a combination whereby British shipowners bind themselves to keep up the rates from English ports, whereas they leave the rates in foreign
      856
      ports perfectly open to competition. They prevent any natural competition arising by a very ingenious device—
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the effect of the shipping ring upon English trade. The question before the House is as to whether there should be an inquiry into subsidies to foreign ships by their Governments and their effect upon British trade. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member in regard to shipping rings generally is out of order.
      MR. NORMAN: My hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark has brought something in the nature of a personal charge against every member of this Committee, although, no doubt, he did not mean to do so. He has charged the Committee with a deliberate bias in favour of a certain class of busines men. It will have been a matter of surprise to most Members of the House who have taken an interest in this matter, that my hon. friend has stayed up night alter night to oppose the re-appointment of this Committee. He has, however, let us into the secret tonight in the passionate invective he has indulged in against this Committee. What is his charge based upon? It is based solely upon the evidence. The evidence simply consists of a series of questions put by members of the Committee, and answers to them. Any denunciation of the Committee ought to be based on its Report, but the Committee, while formally reporting that it should be reappointed, has not given any indication of what its views are, and has given no indication of what its views on the subjects which came before it may turn out to be. I submit, with all respect to my hon. friend, that it is entirely unfair to conclude from those questions and answers what the Committee is likely to say in its Report or to anticipate what that Report is likely to be. Those questions were put simply to elicit information. The hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire has no right to talk about the Committee attempting to bolster up any case for the shipowners. I know there is not an hon. Member of this House who would be more unwilling

      857
      to do anything unfair than the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire, but I think that in this case his action has been very unfair.
      MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire used the term "bolstering up" in that sense. Had I understood the hon. Member as making a charge of deliberate unfairness in regard to the Committee, I should certainly have called him to order.
      MR. NORMAN: My hon. friend certainly used the words "To bolster up a case," and my criticism applies only to that expression. Unfortunately, I am not a shipowner, and I have absolutely no interest in ships, though I have, however, seen a, great deal of ships. It is most unfair to me and to other members of the Committee to say that we have any bias whatever in favour of shipowners. Shipowners are exactly like any other class of business men in the community, they know their own business very well, they are interested in shipping, and they naturally desire, when possible, to promote their own interests. This is not peculiar to shipowners, but to every class of the community, and to stigmatise shipowners as a sort of leprous class who ought to be segregated in the public interest seems to me to be distinctly unfair. Personally, I cherish a lively suspicion of shipping rings, and as far as possible my own questions have been so directed as to find out something about their origin and methods. A good deal has been said about the terms of reference, and the Chairman of the Committee has made a very able defence of the action of the Committee and the scope which has been given to this inquiry. I would venture to defend our inquiry on rather different grounds. I cannot say offhand exactly what the terms of reference are, but I take it that any good Committee frequently goes beyond the terms of its reference—not intentionally, but accidentally; and, indeed, this is inevitable, when a Committee shows enthusiasm and a desire to follow up any train of interesting information that comes before it. If a Committee is led by enthusiasm to go beyond its reference, I think the House might generally regard that as
      858
      reflecting credit on the Committee and not as a proper basis of censure, and that is what seems to mo to he the ease at the present moment, when matters connected with British shipping have come to the front in so sensational and vital a manner. When the Committee reports, its Report may be the last word of wisdom, or it may be a piece of folly. When the House gets the Report, it can do what it likes with it. It can act upon it, or put it in the waste-paper basket. I think it is wholly unreasonable that a Committee, which has gone through two-thirds of its work and in obedience to instructions from the House to carry out a certain inquiry to the best of its ability, whether great or small, should be stopped just before it has finished its labours. It is almost, if I may use the word, farcical. If there is anything to be deduced from the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, it is that he himself ought to be added to the Committee, and I feel sure I speak for the Committee when I say that we should gladly welcome his presence.
      MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I support in the heartiest manner the Motion for the appointment of the Committee. I certainly think it is desirable that it should be allowed to finish its work and present its Report. I cannot understand the argument of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in objecting to the reappointment of the Committee. He has endeavoured to draw a distinction between British trade and British shipping. He says that an inquiry into British trade ought not to be extended to British shipping, but surely shipping is a branch of our trade and a very important branch. I quite agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Aston Manor that, although in certain points there are distinctions between the mercantile interest and the shipping interest, the mercantile wishing to have freights as low, and the shipping to have freights as high, as possible. If anything were to happen to the detriment of British shipping it would not be an advantage but a loss and disadvantage to British trade. I honestly confess, and I am not ashamed to confess, that this inquiry should relate in the main to British

      859
      shipping, the branch of British trade which is immediately affected. I wish every Member of the House knew as well as I happen to know, coming from a great shipowning centre, how critical is the condition of British trade at the present moment. The eyes of the country have been directed to the recent combination. I merely refer to that as an illustration, which I think I may do without being out of order, of the critical condition of British trade at the present time. If we look at the tables prepared by the Board of Trade showing the complete tonnage of shipping in the carrying trade, distinguishing as they do between British and foreign tonnage, we find that in the last five years the proportion of British tonnage in the carrying trade between the United Kingdom and foreign countries and the colonies has decreased 10 per cent., while the foreign tonnage has increased 10 per cent. I say that that is a most alarming state of things, and one that seriously deserves attention. There is no doubt that the bounty system is most injurious to our trade.
      There is no necessity for me to go into details, because the subject has already been mentioned, but I wish to state that the large bounties given by foreign Governments, and especially the French Government, amount to £1,500,000 per annum, and I wish to refer to the danger, at the present time, of the bounties increasing. It is the old story of the sugar bounties over again, certain terms being made against a branch of British trade, and unless that branch can be protected against attack it is ruined. With regard to French bounties, the House may not know that in 1893 a law was passed giving large bounties to sailing ships. This year that law has been renewed, and the bounties are to be continued for a period of ten years. I want to explain to the House what effect that has upon our shipping trade. These bounties are given to ships engaged in what is known as the long voyage trade, such as the trade to San Francisco. A ship of 3,000 tons starts with a bounty equal to £4,500 for the twelvemonth which is occupied by the voyage to San Francisco and back. When a British ship arrives in San Francisco the rate
      860
      of freight is cut by the French ship because it can make a profit at the lower rate, while the British ship makes a loss. The entire working of the French, ship is paid out of the bounty. The owners of our sailing ships are in this position at the present day, that they do not know where to go to get freights. It is proposed at the present time to advance to the foreigner shipowner half the cost of a new vessel, which is to be paid back in twenty years, in twenty annual instalments, without interest. There is a proposal also to pay part of the coal consumed if the ship is trading to Russian ports, and it is further proposed to pay the marine insurance on the ship to the extent of three-fourths of the value at the ridiculously low rate of 2 per cent. That shows the great danger that is looming in the future, and the shipowners are coming to the conclusion, and I think they are justified, that in some way or other, if some branches of our shipping trade are not to be killed, we must find some means of defending ourselves against this unfair method of attack.
      As long as there is a fair field and no favour our shipowners are perfectly ready to meet competition, but they cannot meet the competition of oreign shipowners who are backed up by foreign Governments, and I think the British shipowner has a right to come to his own Government to ask for something to be done to protect him. Do not allow our trade to be ruined before your eyes. There is only one thing that can be done in the future if we cannot get these foreign bounties removed, and that is, we must for the time being meet bounty by bounty. I perfectly agree with what has fallen from the Chairman of this Committee that it would be a mistake for the Committees to take too narrow a view of their instructions. It is quite true that they have only been appointed—
      "To inquire into the subsides to steam-hip companies and sailing vessels under foreign Governments, and be effect thereby produced on British trade."
      But this question is so intimately connected with other questions to which my hon. friend the Member for Aston Manor alluded that it is impossible to separate them. We find that when any

      861
      great question is alluded to it is impossible to judge upon it without knowing something about other questions with which it is connected. Although I should be sorry myself to see the terms of the reference to the Committee enlarged, I agree with the Chairman of the Committee that they should take an all round view, and not be restricted absolutely to the instructions. The Committee have power to see if an evil exists, but if they find that it does exist, they have no power to make recommendations to meet the evil. It seems to me that that is the crux of the question. I do not think there is any reason to doubt that our trade has suffered from foreign subsidies, and I think the Committee will find some means of overcoming that difficulty, if they are not specialty authorised by the House to make recommendations. I think I may be permitted to glance at one or two questions which have already been alluded to in the course of the debate. It is possible that the Committee might decide against making any recommendation in respect to bounties on shipping. I have already felt a great indisposition to ask bounties. I have always been a Free Trader, and I believe in Free Trade, but you may work Free Trade to death.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It would not be in order to discuss our commercial policy on this Motion. The proposal before the House is that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the effect produced on British trade by the granting of subsidies to foreign steamship companies.
      MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: There are other ways in which the Committee might ultimately find it possible to do something for shipping. One way is to relieve shipping from some of the restrictions to which it is at present subject. The present system is to give preference to the foreigner.
      MR. SPEAKER: I must say again that it would not be in order for the hon. Member to discuss the whole position of British shipping. The Committee is specially to inquire into the effect of foreign subsidies, and to go into all the remedies that might be suggested
      862
      for the amelioration of the portion of British shipping would be outside the scope of the proposal.
      MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I will only say in conclusion that I am sure the House will feel that our mercantile marine ought not lightly to be tampered with. It is indispensable for the safety and prosperity of the country. We owe our Empire and our world wide fame to the colonial mercantile marine and our navy. We have in our mercantile marine a reserve on which we can fall back. It would be a disastrous thing for this country if anything happened to impair the prosperity of the mercantile marine. I hope the Committee will be able before very long to present a Report, but I believe the position of our mercantile marine is so critical at the present time that we ought not to wait for any Report of any Committee. I believe it is not a matter for a Committee, but for prompt and energetic action on the part of the Government.
      MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I think, from the tone of the speeches delivered on this subject from the various shipowners who have spoken, that they are getting into a state of terror. I am afraid they are getting alarmed for themselves, but I do not think the shipowners of Great Britain have yet come to the point when they are going to come to the Government hat in hand and ask for subsidies. It is true that the Committee who are sitting are doing their very best to find out the causes of the present situation, but they have not yet given their Report. I have no doubt that in the Report they will go into the whole question of foreign subsidies, and I have no doubt that the question whether it would be advisable or not to give subsidies to British shipping will be thoroughly thrashed out. I think, therefore, it would be better to wait until the Committee has given its Report before we cry "Peccavi." I have every faith in the Committee, although I should have liked to see more business men upon it. I say so without any reflection upon the Members who are upon it. The hon. Member for West Hull alluded to the Morgan syndicate purchasing the White Star boats. I am afraid the ghost of that syndicate haunts shipowners night and day. It is all a storm in a teacup.

      863
      We can lick the Morgan syndicate easily. We could build the boats for speed or anything else, and we can run the Morgan syndicate or any syndicate off the face of the water. I do not like to see our shipowners losing heart. What we have to do if we find the shipping trade of this country declining is very simple. Let British goods be carried in British bottoms and nothing else. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, I am very glad that meets with the approval of hon. Members on the other side of the House, and also of the gallant Admiral whom I am glad to see sitting there. I personally deprecate all the sorrowful tone our shipowners are assuming at this period of our history. I have much pleasure in supporting the proposal for the appointment of the Committee, but I would like to see some more pronounced business men appointed. If I am in order I would nominate a gentleman or two.
      MR. SPEAKER: This is a Motion for the appointment of a Committee. If the Motion is carried, then will come the time to nominate Members.
      MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I think these are questions which we should not approach in terror. We have not lost our British nerve or pluck yet. There were only three or four good ships amongst those acquired by the Morgan syndicate, and British shipowners need not be lugubrious over what is being done.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think I may appeal to the House to bring this discussion now to a close. The debate has ranged over a great number of topics, from the question of paying subsidies to British shipping to the re-enactment of the navigation laws. I do not think this is an occasion for the discussion of so wide a range of topics. The question before the House is an extremely simple one. It is whether we should reappoint the Committee which was appointed last year, and which—if I may judge from what fell from the hon. Member from Aston Manor—has probably taken two-thirds of the evidence which it would require to take before reporting to the House. The
      864
      one argument which has been urged against the reappointment of the Committee is that advanced by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, that it exceeded its reference in the evidence which it took last year. What remedy does the hon. Member for Mid Lanark propose? That if the Committee were reappointed it should be reappointed with a larger reference! I think those who listened to the hon. Member for Aston Manor will not have carried away the idea that the Committee is likely to interpret its reference too narrowly. At the same time, it is quite another thing to enlarge the reference, and to require the Committee to inquire into the additional points which an enlarged reference would include. If that were done, it would be absolutely impossible for the Committee to report during the current session. The question before the House, then, is really this:—In the first place, should this Committee be reappointed or not? and on that point no one but the hon. Member for Mid Lanark has any doubt. The second point is the extension of the reference; and as to that I can only say that, after what has fallen from the Chairman of the Committee, there is no necessity for any such extension.
      SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he wished to point out that the terms of the reference this year were not identical with those of last year. Two important words had been left out. Last year a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into "the system of subsidies." This year it was appointed to inquire into the question of "the subsidies." He presumed that this was a clerical error, and could easily be amended, but he thought it was important. He considered it was a great misfortune that the reappointment of the Committee should have been so long delayed; and he thought the sooner it got to work the better. He took a very serious view of the outlook for shipping, and also in regard to the question of the protection of commerce in time of war; but his present point was, that the sooner the Committee got to work and completed it the better.
      SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark appeared to

      865
      oppose the re-appointment of the Committee on the ground that last session they had exceeded the scope of the reference to them; but the hon. Gentleman did not quote, in his hearing, a single question or answer which had the effect of proving that the Committee had exceeded their reference. He ventured to submit that the reference was so wide that it would be practically impossible for the Committee to go beyond it, seeing that it was to inquire into the effect produced on British trade by foreign subsidies. Now if that were the case there was nothing, in his view, connected with British trade which would not fairly come within the scope of those words in the reference. Something had been said by an hon. Member on the question of light dues, but he ventured to think that there were other matters than that which bore more heavily on ship owners. There was, for instance, the question of the load line. They knew that the British ships had to have a load line painted on their sides, and these ships could not be loaded to immerse them below that load line. They also knew that foreign ships had no such obligation on them. The result was that vessels that had been built under the British flag and had been sailed at a loss by British owners on account of the load line, had been sold to foreigners and that these same vessels come back to British ports and were allowed to sail away therefrom with excessive cargoes. This worked enormous disadvantage to British owners. Similarly, foreign ships coming into British ports were not under the same obligations as British ships as to the number of passengers they could carry and as to the various restrictions for the safety of passengers. The result was that foreign vessels came into Southampton and took on board a much larger number of passengers than British ships would be permitted to carry. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool had pointed out that these conditions had been so extremely onerous that there were few spheres in which British ships could obtain freight which would enable them to pay their way. His hon. friend the Member for the Exchange Division had suggested that the only way to deal with this question was to meet bounty with bounty. He would not enter into that question, but he would ask hon. Members opposite how they were going to
      866
      deal with this matter, and the effect which subsidies had in assisting foreign shipping. Like the hon. Member, he was a Free Trader, and was heartily opposed to bounties of every sort and kind; but he failed to see bow the difficulty was to be got over unless some means were pointed out for the consideration and approval of the House which would equalise the conditions under which British and foreign shipowners conducted their business. Speaking with some knowledge of the subject he most earnestly commended to the House the speedy re-appointment of the Committee, and he was sure the House would not find fault with them if they took the widest view of the scope of the reference, and fully inquired into this great national question.
      MR. RENWICKsaid that while he fully sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his desire to curtail the debate, he would just like to point out to the House why he thought it was absolutely necessary that they ought to be allowed some latitude in discussing this question. Not an atom of evidence had been taken by the Committee since the month of August last, and although nearly two-thirds of the session had gone, there seemed to be the greatest desire to burke discussion with regard to the re-appointment of the Committee. It was the duty of the Government to face the facts which were patent to the whole country, and if this Committee was not able to inquire into the whole of this most important question, a Committee which had that power should be appointed. They were face to face with one of the most momentous crisises in the shipping trade of this country. The hon. Member for Gateshead had told them that they must not get into a state of alarm; ho deprecated the desire to give bounties; but then he went on to make the most extraordinary statement ever made in the House, that British goods should be carried in British bottoms.
      MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he had not said that. What he had said was that that might be a possible arrangement.
      MR. RENWICKventured to maintain that that would be a possible disarrangement, because he believed it would be impossible to discover whether the goods

      867
      belonged to British subjects or to foreign subjects. The large liners seemed almost to monopolise the attention of the Committee, but what were called the tramp owners who, he believed, represented 70 or 80 per cent. of the whole tonnage of the country, were entitled to consideration equally with the liners. He ventured to appeal to the Government to meet this whole subject boldly when they were about it, and if the Committee was too limited in its reference, the Government should move for the appointment of a Committee to go into the whole question. He maintained that if there had been a Minister, as there ought to have been, specially appointed to look after shipping, trade, and commerce, there would have been a different state of things with regard to this matter.
      MR. DUKEsaid he would like to tell the House what in fact the Committee, of which he was a member, had done last session. The view which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had given of the proceedings of the Committee was the strangest travesty he had ever heard. He had been present at every meeting of the Committee, and had read through the notes of its proceedings twice since it met last session, and he could say with the utmost confidence that the Committee was in no sense a shipowners Committee, or one in the interests of shipowners. Further, as a man with practical knowledge of business, and with some experience in conducting inquiries, he maintained that the inquiry could not have been conducted more clearly and closely with regard to the terms of the reference than it had been conducted by his hon. friend the Member for Aston Manor. That hon. Gentleman had insisted that the Committee should not go beyond the reference, which was as to the effect of foreign subsidies on our own trade; but it would have been idle if the Committee had rejected what was told them by experienced men of the effect being produced by these foreign subsidies. As to the suggestion that the Committee was an instrument of the shipowners, he would point out that a considerable majority of the members had no interest in shipowning. Then it had been said that the inquiry was not confined to trade; but the only latitude the Chairman allowed them was to regard the carrying trade as part of the trade of the country. He had
      868
      been amazed to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite, posing as business men, speaking of the trade of this country as though it did not include the carrying trade. The export trade of Japan had grown during the last twenty years from £10,000,000 a year to £45,000,000 a year, and a very large proportion of the increase had gone to foreign countries—that was, had been carried in foreign bottoms—as a direct result of the subsidies which had been given by foreign Governments, especially French, German and American. The British Consul at Yokohama said before the Committee—
      "It looks as if the day were not far distant when Germany and Japan will do the whole of the carrying trade between Japan and this country.

      Twenty years ago British ships had almost the monoply of that trade. The same thing might be said of the Straits Settlement Trade, and the Bombay trade; and the manner in which this inquiry began was the connection between the depression of the trade of the East African settlements and our own colonies, and the introduction of subsidised lines by Continental States. The Committee had dealt in the same manner with the East Indian, the China, the Japan, and the Australian trade. He could not understand how the Committee could have dealt in a more business-like manner with the question raised in the reference. If some business man wanted to take a place on the Committee it was open to him, but so far as the Committee at large was concerned they, under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Aston Manor, had at any rate clone their very best.
      MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that this inquiry was especially important to the owners of sailing ships, because the subsidies given by foreign countries, especially by France, were largely clearing out British sailing ships. It was greatly to the interest of this country that our sailing fleet should be maintained. Only the other day he had made a short voyage, and he was very much struck with the fact that the only sailing vessels they passed were magnificent French four-masted sailing ships. He himself was not an owner of sailing ships, but he would say that the position of the owners of British sailing ships was

      869
      deplorable by reason of the subsidies granted by foreign countries. The owners of tramp steamers, of whom he was one, disliked subsidies, whether foreign or British. This was not the occasion on which to discuss the American combination, but he wished very briefly to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead. If it were only a matter of purchase of White Star ships, the country need not be afraid; it had other ships and plenty of shipowners; but the real danger of the combination was not the ships that were purchased but the trade that was purchased. He hoped on some future occasion to make it clear and emphatic that that was a very real danger indeed, and a very serious blow to British commerce. The real question was to keep the British carrying trade as far as possible in British ships. At present, however, he would confine himself to the expression of a wish that the Committee should be reappointed, and of regret that that should have been delayed by the action of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark.
      Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subsidies to steamship companies and sailing vessels under Foreign governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade.

      PRIVATE BUSINESS.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Committee which I ask the House to appoint is the Committee which I promised when introducing the new Standing Orders. I do not think it necessary that I should now say anything at length on the subject. It was feared by some hon. Members that the new Rule altering the time of private business to nine o'clock would militate against its proper conduct. I hope, indeed, that that is not true, but I think it might be desirable that there should be a Committee to consider the question. There are larger questions connected with private Bill procedure not touched on by this Motion, but these, I think, can only be dealt with by a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. It is only a Committee of Lords and Commons that can really recommend what general change should be made in
      870
      the system common to both Houses of dealing with this branch of our work. All that is proposed now is to ask this Committee to consider whether that part of private Bill procedure which is special to this House ought or ought not to be modified by any change in our Standing Orders. There are questions connected with the period in which fees should be exacted, the amount of the fees, and the stages which Bills have to go through which should be considered by this House. Larger questions affecting private Bill business should be discussed in common between the two Houses. The reference is whether in view of the change in the time at which private business is taken under there solution of the 1st of May, 1902, any alterations in Standing Orders are desirable in the interests of economy, efficiency, and general convenience.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether, in view of the change in the time at which Private Business is taken under the Resolution of 1st May, 1902, any alterations in Standing Orders are desirable in the interests of economy, efficiency, and general convenience."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has left the House in considerable doubt, or with lack of information, as to what is the purpose of this Committee. In the first place, it is not to inquire into the large question of how private business is to be dealt with as a whole. The Scotch Private Bill Procedure Act which was passed a few years ago, and which has worked extremely well, has given us a certain amount of experience in approaching the large question of private business generally. But that is not the object of the inquiry now proposed. We have already fixed and determined that private business is to be taken at nine o'clock. What, therefore, is the Committee to inquire into? I am not speaking in any captious spirit, because I am very anxious to see a better arrangement of private business, and I have frequently given free expression to the sentiment created by the hideous discomfort and disarrangement of our business by private Bill business which we witnessed last session and the session

      871
      before. So far, we are all agreed. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about inquiring into the period in which fees should be exacted. But that is surely a small matter to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into, and I think the House is entitled to a little more information. The Committee is not to inquire into the question of preserving the proper control of the House over private business, and yet relieving it from the burden of tedious investigation which has been found so inconvenient of late years. It is also assumed that private business shall always be taken at nine o'clock. That is a fixed and irrevocable Rule, for the moment, at any rate. What else is there to inquire into?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? There is really no more information to give except this. The House has assented to altering the time of private business from three o'clock to nine o'clock. It has been suggested that this is a serious blow at the mode of conducting private business. I have always hoped, and still hope and believe, that that is not the case, but, at all events, I quite agree that it may be worth while that the House of Commons should inquire whether the change of hours requires any corresponding and correlated change in our Standing Orders. If the House is completely satisfied that we can deal successfully with private business at nine o'clock, without any further alteration, I should be the last to complain. Critics, however, have said that we require further alterations to make the system work, but if it is already clear that no change in our Standing Orders is necessary, then I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that all we have to do is to appoint that larger Committee to inquire into the general question of private business. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think, however, he is under some misapprehension when he says that the objection expressed to taking private business at nine o clock was that it would damage the interests of private business. Our objection was that it would throw the rest of the
      872
      business of the House into confusion, and it would occupy an evening sitting which ought to be otherwise employed. Moreover, the nine o'clock Rule has only just come into operation, and I do not see what experience can be drawn from its working to guide the Committee as to the changes that should be made. I still fail to see, with no desire to present the appointment of the Committee, what its particular function is to be.
      MR. BLAKEsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that the general sense of the House with reference to the change of the time of private business was that the inconvenience would be ra her to public than to private business. That was the view which he himself had more than once presented to the House, and he also pointed out that the true remedy was to make opposed private business the first order on some one morning or evening sitting of each week. The right hon. Gentleman had made that impossible by the change in the Standing Orders, and the House was now absolutely committed to the present system of conducting private business. He thought that the House in the circumstances was entitled to receive from the right hon. Gentleman, who solemnly moved that a Committee should be appointed to consider whether any alterations in the Standing Orders were desirable in the interests of economy, efficiency, and general convenience, a statement of the possible changes which were to be open for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman threw out only one suggestion with reference to fees, but nothing in the time in which private business was to be taken had any relation to the question of fees. He was, therefore, utterly at a loss to understand what was the character of the investigation the House was asked to embark on. He did not know that any change was now-possible which would make greatly for economy, efficiency, and general convenience, and as far as he could see the great change which might have produced economy, convenience, and efficiency of conduct was a change which the right hon. Gentleman had rendered impossible by the adoption of the new Standing Orders. He said this, of course, eliminating those

      873
      larger issues of great consequence which it was understood were not embraced in the reference. He thought the House was entitled to receive from its Leader, when invited to appoint a Select Committee, some reasonable explanation of the functions which the Committee was to discharge.
      MR. RENSHAWsaid he agreed with his right hon. friend in his view, which was also shared by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that the question of private business, in its wider aspects, needed to be dealt with by a joint Committee of the two Houses, and that it was desirable that as early as possible a Committee of that sort should be appointed. He did not, however, believe that at this period of the session it would be possible to set up such a Committee to inquire into such a large question and to report before the end of the session. The question now before the House was the appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into the effect of the present Sessional Orders, which he hoped would soon be Standing Orders, on private Bill legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition challenged his right hon. friend to say upon what particular point such an inquiry was needed. His right hon. friend referred to the question of fees, which had been brought forward on more than one occasion; but there was another question which ought also to be inquired into by the Select Committee, and that was whether or not it was desirable to alter the method in which the House dealt with the various stages of private Bills. That was a matter which he assumed would come under the consideration of the proposed Committee. He ventured to make an appeal to his right hon. friend with reference to the actual language of the Motion. He had put an Amendment on the Paper—to omit the words "in view of," in order to substitute "subject to." It seemed to him that the language of the Motion indicated that the changes which were to be considered by the Committee were consequent upon the alteration in the time at which private business was taken. He did not think that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and he, therefore, begged to move his Amendment.
      Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "in view of" and insert the words "subject to."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought the House had some reason to complain that the proceedings of the 1888 Committee had not been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It was unfortunate that there were only two copies of the proceedings of that Committee available, and he was informed by the librarian that they were both on the Treasury Bench, to which he had no means of access.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Amendment.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the Government will hand us over one of the copies.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend's Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I think his words are better than mine, and I am prepared to accept them.
      MR. DILLONsaid that, as far as he could understand, the reference made it impossible for the Committee to consider some things which they ought to be free to consider. The reference on the Paper only referred to the change in the time at which private business was taken. That meant, ho took it, that it would be open to the Committee to consider how the conduct of private bill business was affected by the House meeting at two o'clock instead of at three o'clock. That was a matter of vital importance, and, if the Committee were appointed at all, it ought to be able to consider that question. He held a very strong view on the matter, as he believed that the change in the time of the meeting of the House would affect Private Bill Committees to a very serious extent indeed, and would put a strain on Members serving on such Committees which would be absolutely intolerable. Therefore, he thought it was a very lame thing to appoint a Committee on private Bill business, and tie it up so closely that it could not consider the question of the time of the meeting of the House. The Amendment would, in his opinion, prevent the Committee from considering that matter, as the Committee would not be able to take into consideration the desirability of any

      875
      alteration in the Rules, as they would have to conduct their inquiry subject to the Rules as they stood at present. He did not think that was desirable.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought the hon. Member for East Mayo was quite correct in his interpretation of the Amendment, which would distinctly limit the reference to the Committee. At present, the Motion allowed the Committee to suggest alterations in the Standing Orders in view of the alterations already made, but if the Amendment were inserted they would not have that power. His right hon. friend was no doubt aware of the extremely anomalous position of Wednesdays under the new Rules. There were four different kinds of Wednesdays.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was merely giving an illustration of a matter which he thought the Committee ought to be allowed to inquire into.
      MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment before the House is to insert the words "subject to."
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his contention was that the words "subject to" would limit the scope of the Committee. There were four different kinds of Wednesdays. On one, opposed private business could not be taken after 10.15. That might appear to the Committee to be very inconvenient, and they ought to have power to consider it. He, therefore, thought it would be very unfortunate if the Amendment were adopted. After all, his right hon. friend should remember that he need not be bound by the Report of the Committee. In the circumstances, he would suggest to his hon. friend the desirability of withdrawing his Amendment.
      MR. BLAKEsaid his view of the Amendment was that it enlarged the reference to the Committee. If the words "subject to" were inserted, the whole range of Standing Orders would be open to consideration, and not merely
      876
      the change in the time of private Bill business. Any alterations which the Committee might recommend need not in that view be limited to private Bill business, as long as they were in the interests of economy, efficiency, and general convenience.
      COLONEL LUCASasked if the question of carrying over private Bills from one session to another would be included in the reference.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am in favour of the Amendment. The Committee is to be appointed to inquire whether, in view of the change in the time when private Bill business is taken, any alterations are desirable; and these alterations, we are told, have reference to fees. What on earth have fees to do with the matter? It is said that if we put in the words "subject to" we restrict the inquiry. I do not see that. I remain in the same degree of ignorance as to the precise purpose for which the Committee is to be appointed, but, if it is to be appointed, I think the words "subject to" are better than "in view of."
      MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid that, whatever form of words were inserted, the inquiry would be limited to private business. As yet, the House had had no experience of the work of the new Standing Orders, but it seemed to him that one of their effects would be that private business would be likely to disappear from the control of the House. Surely the question of fees was not the only one which should be inquired into. For himself, be should prefer to see the larger question dealt with.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the postponement of the Budget had given hon. Members a very agreeable day, because it was quite clear that the Government did

      877
      not intend to go on with any business at all. There had been a long Irish debate during the afternoon, but the conduct of the Government was most placid and admirable, and there was not even a suggestion of the closure. Now they were engaged in discussing a Motion which was not intended to lead anywhere or do anything. It, however, presented to the House the First Lord of the Treasury in one of his lighter and earlier moods, before the trammels of real responsibility fell upon him. The right hon. Gentleman dashed into the question before the House without the remotest intention that a Select Committee should ever be appointed. It was one of the means the Cabinet had of killing time, until they could make up their minds whether the bread tax was to be imposed or nor. Having cast their bread upon the waters, he trusted right hon. Gentlemen would not complain if private Members addressed themselves to the question of private Bid legislation in a serious spirit, and considered it from a legislative point of view. From his standpoint, nothing was more admirable than the way in which the House of Commons conducted its private Bill legislation. He did not see that it was less important to consider a Stoke Poges Gas Bill—if it had any gas—when "the curfew tolls the knell of parting day," than to consider whether the natives of India should have waist cloths or pocket handkerchiefs. Private business was of more importance to the country than all the great Imperial talk which had been heard during the last few years. He could not understand why any Englishman, seeing the admirable manner in which private business was conducted, should desire to make any change whatever, but when a change was proposed it was remarkable that no reference was made to the recommendations of the Committee of 1888. The private business of the House of Commons was conducted by one of the best Chairmen it had ever had. In the same way, private business in the House of Lords was admirably conducted by Lord Morley; what was wanted was some codification or co-ordination of the Standing Orders. If that could be done, he did not think that there could be a more admirable system than the present, system, with the sole exception of the question of fees. The House made a profit of something like £40,000 a year in fees. He really thought that fees ought to be
      878
      abolished. They were an unjust imposition on people who could not very well afford them, and they prevented people coming to the House for private Bills. In 1888 two Committees were appointed—one on public procedure, and the other on private Bill procedure. He had the misfortune to sit on both, and, although some changes were made in public procedure, the vast mass of the proposals with reference to private Bill procedure made by a most competent tribunal—if he might say so as regarded every Member of it except himself—remained absolutely untouched, although during the intervening fourteen years a Conservative administration was in power except for three years. It was, therefore, remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should have made his proposal tonight without any effort being made to carry out any one of the proposals of fourteen years ago. He thought the appointment of the Committee would be futile, as the matter could only be considered after they had a little experience of the present method of conducting private Bill business. On the previous night he thought it was an advantage that the Bill with reference to the Richmond Hill view should have been considered in the evening, when Members were not impatient for questions or other business. The Committee of 1888 consisted of six Members of the House of Lords and six Members of the House of Commons, and every person connected with private Bill business was examined before it. Not a shadow of a change had been attempted as the result of its recommendations, and now the First Lord of the Treasury, like the child of nature he was, made his proposal as if really the world never existed until 1902. It appeared to him that they were simply wasting time, and Members ought not to be asked to engage in an inquiry such as was proposed until the Government took steps to carry out proposals which, if they were not of age, were at least fourteen years old.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he had a difficulty in seeing what was the precise purpose for which the Committee was to be appointed. He did not think it was a

      879
      question of fees. He himself did not consider that the provision for private business was quite sufficient; and he imagined that one of the principal matters which the Committee would consider was whether some further time was not required for it. The reference was very vague; but, if that were the object of the Committee, he thought it was a very laudable one, and one which ought to be encouraged.
      Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether, subject to the change in the time at which private business is taken under the Resolution of 1st May, 1902, any alterations in Standing Orders are desirable in the interests of economy, efficiency, and general convenience.

      NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
      Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether any plan can be advantageously adopted for enabling the House, by Select Committee or otherwise, more effectively to make an examination, not involving criticisms of policy, into the details of national expenditure.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
      MR. T. M. HEALY: May I move that the British Constitution be referred to a Select Committee?

      LOAN BILL.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      (Mr. JEFFREYS, Hampshire, N., in the Chair.)
      Clause 1 :—
      MR. DILLONmoved to reduce the amount of the loan from £32,000,000 to £25,000,000. This would still leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer a margin of £5,000,000 over and above the total Estimates of the year. That was more than sufficient for all purposes of sound finance. If, owing to the misconduct of the Government, the present peace negotiations
      broke down, and the war had to be continued, it would be extremely wholesome and desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be obliged to come to the House for an additional loan before the end of the present session. The House in that way would not part with its control over the conduct of the war at so critical a time as the present, as it would do by giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sufficient margin to carry on the war to the end of the year.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In line 16, to leave out the words 'thirty-two,' and insert the words 'twenty-live.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'thirty-two' stand part of the Clause."
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It may be right or it may be wrong that the House should sanction this Bill; but it is impossible, I think, for it to agree to this Amendment. The House has already, by Resolution and by passing the Second Reading of the Bill, assented to the loan being issued. The loan has been issued, and the money has been borrowed; therefore, it is absolutely impossible that the amount of the loan should be diminished. If the House should decline, on the Third Reading of the Bill, to assent to the loan altogether, we should change our side of the House. But the loan would still have been issued, and the country would still be liable for it. I do not think the anticipations of the hon. Member with regard to the use of the money can possibly come true, because, the money having been borrowed, it will be available to pay off floating debt to the extent to which it is not required for other purposes. I hope, therefore, he will not put the House to the trouble of dividing on the Amendment.
      (11.38.) Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 43. (Division List No. 183.)

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

      Arnold-Forster. Hugh O.

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Arrol, Sir William

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

      Bain, Colonel James Robert

      Flower, Ernest

      Nicol, Donald Ninian

      Balcarres, Lord

      Forster, Henry William

      Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

      Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Partington, Oswald

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

      Pemberton, John S. G.

      Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

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

      Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

      Beresford, Lord Chas, William

      Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

      Plummer, Walter R.

      Bignold, Arthur

      Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

      Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

      Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

      Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

      Gretton, John

      Purvis, Robert

      Brassey, Albert

      Groves, James Grimble

      Raseh, Major Frederic Carne

      Brodrick, Ht. Hon. St. John

      Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

      Renshaw, Charles Bine

      Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Renwick, George

      Butcher, John George

      Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

      Rickett, J. Compton

      Caldwell, James

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

      Carlile, William Walter

      Henderson, Alexander

      Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

      Ropner, Colonel Robert

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

      Round, James

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

      Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

      Rutherford, John

      Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

      Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

      Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

      Cayzer, Sir Charles William

      Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

      Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Johnston, William (Belfast)

      Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

      Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

      Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

      Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

      Chapman, Edward

      Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

      Stroyan, John

      Chacrington, Spencer

      Lawson, John Grant

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Churchill, Winston Spencer

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      Leigh, Sir Joseph

      Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

      Cohen, Benjamin Louis

      Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Leng, Sir John

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

      Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

      Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Tonlmin, George

      Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

      Long, Col. Chas, W. (Evesham)

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Cranborne, Viscount

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

      Valentia, Viscount

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Vincent, Cl. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

      Denny, Colonel

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

      Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

      Wanklyn, James Leslie

      Dickson, Charles Scott

      Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

      Warr, Augustus Frederick

      Dorington, Sir John Edward

      Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

      Doughty, George

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Webb, Colonel William George

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      MacIver, David (Liverpool)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Duke, Henry Edward

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

      Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

      M'Crae, George

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Elibank, Master of

      M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

      Majendie, James A. H.

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

      Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

      Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

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

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

      Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

      Monagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

      Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow

      Finch, George H.

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Mount, William Arthur

      Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Blake, Edward

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

      Boland, John

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Levy, Maurice

      O' Malley, William

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Channing, Francis Allston

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

      Crean, Eugene

      M'Govern, T.

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Cremer, William Randal

      M'Hugh, Patrick A.

      Sullivan, Donal

      Delany, William

      M'Kean, John

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Dillon, John

      M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

      Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

      Doogan, P. C.

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Ffrench, Peter

      Mooney, John J.

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

      Gilhooly, James

      Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

      Sir Thomas Esmonde and

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      O' Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

      Captain Donelan.

      First Resolution read a second time.

      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 2 agreed to.
      Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

      SUPPLY. [15TH MAY, AFTERNOON SITTING.] REPORT.
      Resolutions reported—
    CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

      CLASS I.
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £37,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for expenditure in respect of Royal palaces and Marlborough House."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £66,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the Royal parks and pleasure gardens."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the Houses of Parliament buildings."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      MR. WEIRthought the time had come when something should be done in regard to the ancient Royal palace of Linlithgow. He wanted the palace to be so restored and repaired that when Scotsmen, after long years of exile, returned to their native land, they would find the building in a satisfactory condition. There was doubtless a difficulty in getting money from the Treasury, but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this vote should put his foot down and demand the necessary
      884
      funds. When English palaces, such as Hampton Court Palace, were concerned, money could be obtained easily enough, and if the Scottish Members were organised and stood shoulder to shoulder he believed money would be forthcoming for Scotland. He was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman was looking after Holyrood Palace; his efforts in connection with the restoration of the fine old tapestries there appreciated by all.
      It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

      EDUCATION (IRELAND) (COMMISSIONERS' ORDERS).
      Return ordered, "showing—
      A.—(1) Number of Orders made by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, between the 1st day of April, 1900, and the 1st day of April, 1902, cancelling the salaries of assistant teachers in National schools owing to the average attendance being under sixty; (2) And number of such appointments that would not have been cancelled if the average attendance for an assistant were recognised at fifty instead of sixty; (3) Also up to what date and for what period previously was an average attendance of fifty accepted by the Commissioners as sufficient to qualify a school for the services of an assistant; (4) Amount of balance of Parliamentary Vote surrendered by the Commissioners of National Education to the Treasury for the financial years ended respectively, 31st day of March, 1900, 31st day of March, 1901, 31st day of March, 1902, with total for three years period.
      B.—(1) Number of students in the male and female departments respectively of the Marlborough Street Training College at the commencement of current session (1901–2), with the religious denomination of such students; (2) Corresponding returns for each of the training colleges under private management."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
      Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.