Sitting of 2 April 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table; Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  East Ardsley Gas Bill; Winchester Water and Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.

PETITIONS.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Bedford; and Luton; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Muirkirk, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION IN THE METROPOLIS.
  Petition from Poplar, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Alliance for Temperance and Social Reform, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment: from Paisley; Forfar; Ayr; and Brechin; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Birmingham (two); Brentwood; Barking; Leamington; North Kensington; Shrewsbury; Bedford; Sheffield; Wellingborough (two); Kingston-upon-Hull; Lambeth; Mans field; Folkestone; East Ham; Romford; Lincoln; Boltou; and Brierley Hill; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Asbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2947 to 2949 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKHOUSE INFIRMARIES (IRELAND) (NUNS EMPLOYED).
  Return ordered, "showing the number of Workhouse Infirmaries in Ireland in which nuns are employed in any capacity, showing for each Infirmary the number of nuns so employed and the amount paid to them by way of salaries within the last financial year."—(Mr. Sloan.)

  TRADES DISPUTES.
  Return ordered, "showing statistics of

  1893.

  1894.

  1895.

  1896.

  1897.

  1898.

  1899.

  1900.

  1901.

  1902.

  (1) Number and magnitude of Strikes and Lock-outs:—

  Number of Strikes and Lock-outs recorded

  Number of workpeople affected

  Aggregate duration in working days

  Average duration per head of estimated working population

  (2) Principal cause:—

  Percentage of workpeople directly affected by Strikes and Lock-outs due to the undermentioned causes:—

  Wages

  For advance

  Against reduction

  Other

  Total wages

  Hours of labour

  For decrease

  Against increase

  Other

  Total hours

  Employment of particular classes or persons

  Other cause

  ..

  Total

  (3) Results:—

  Percentage of workpeople directly affected by Disputes which resulted—

  In favour of employers

  In favour of workpeople

  In a compromise

  (4) Methods of Settlement:—

  (a) Number of Strikes and Lock-outs settled by—

  Arbitration

  Conciliation and mediation

  Mutual arrangement

  Other ways

  (b) Number of workpeople affected by Strikes and Lock-outs settled by—

  Arbitration

  Conciliation and mediation

  Mutual arrangement

  Other ways

  (5) Number of cases settled under Conciliation Act:—

  Disputes involving stoppage

  Disputes not involving stoppage

  Total

  (Mr. Bell)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Bovine Tuberculosis Commission—Report.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state when the Report prepared by the Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis will be ready for circulation.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) lam afraid I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member on Wednesday last.†
  † See page 161.
  strikes and lock-outs in each of the ten years 1893–1902, in the following form:—

  Metropolitan Asylums Board—Treatment of Imbecile Children.
  MR. FLOWER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Metropolitan Asylums Board intend to place improvable imbecile children in future in the large institution of 2,000 beds at Darenth; and whether, seeing that hopeless imbeciles are also to be placed at Darenth, he will take steps to secure that the improvable children shall have careful medical supervision.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Perhaps my hon. friend will refer to the

  893
  reply which I gave on Tuesday to a Question on the same subject.

  Vaccination Act—Exemption Certificates.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many certificates of exemption applied for by conscientious objectors under the Vaccination Act, 1899, have been refused by magistrates in each year respectively since the Act came into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have no information showing the number of cases in which certificates of conscientious objection to vaccination have been refused.

  Tuberculosis—Seizure of Pigs.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of pigs have been seized in London lately and confiscated because of alleged tuberculosis; and whether he will take steps to prevent unnecessary seizures pending the issue of the Report of the Commission on Tuberculosis.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been drawn to the seizure of carcases of pigs in London which show signs of tuberculosis. The Loyal Commission which reported in 1898 recommended that "in view of the greater tendency to generalisation of tuberculosis in the pig …. the presence of tubercular deposit in any degree should involve seizure of the whole carcase and of the organs." Pending the Report of the Royal Commission which is now sitting, I am not prepared to advise local authorities to act otherwise than in accordance with this recommendation.

  Holly Mount, Tottington, Poor Law Schools.
  MR. FLOWER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Holly Mount, Tottington, Poor Law School has been re-certified; and, if so, will he state what changes, if any, have been made in the management of the school since the certificate was withdrawn.
  † See page 682.
  894
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The schools have been placed under the management of a committee of seven, and the staff has undergone considerable changes. The mother superior, the general mistress, and the head schoolmistress, as well as a majority of the sisters, are English. Moreover, the dietary has been improved. Before granting the new certificate I imposed certain conditions as to the conduct of the schools to which the managers agreed.

  Education Act—Schedule II. (22).
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the new local educational authorities will have, under the provisions of Schedule II. (22) of the Education Act, 1902, to credit school board parishes with a proportion of the first Parliamentary grants paid to the local education authority in respect of the former board schools; and if so, with what proportion.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am consulting the Law Officers of the Crown on certain financial questions arising on the Act, and I must ask leave to defer a reply to my hon. friend until their opinion has been received.

  Education Grants.
  MR. GARDNER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the nature and extent of the assistance he proposes to provide to enable local education authorities to meet the deficiency in their first year's receipts from Government grants.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board of Education have indicated the arrangements they are making for expediting the payments of the grants. Thus it is proposed that a large portion of the new aid grant should be paid to the local education authorities on or immediately after the appointed day, and that the remainder should be issued a few weeks later; and that the block grant, instead of being paid in one sum at the end of the school year, should be paid in quarterly instalments with the I fee grant, so far as the Education Vote

  895
  permits. Notwithstanding these arrangements there will, I fear, he cases where temporary assistance will be required, and I have in preparation a Bill to enable the local education authorities to borrow for the purpose.

  Postmarks.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it has been brought to his notice that the dated postmarks being often used for obliterating purposes are so obscured by the postage stamps that it is difficult to discover the hour or day on which the letter was posted; and whether he can give instructions that the dated postmarks shall be kept distinct from the stamps, as is done already in some post offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) My attention has been directed to this matter, and I quite recognise the inconvenience caused by using the date stamp as an obliterator. I hope by degrees to largely increase the use of stamping machines with a date stamp separate from the obliterator, such as are already employed to a considerable extent in London.

  Alleged Grievances of Welsh Sub-postmasters
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to complaints from sub-postmasters in Wales with regard to the amounts of their pay and allowances; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to remedy the alleged grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I can only call to mind one complaint of this nature. The sub-postmaster in question had committed the very serious offence of altering the name of the payee and the office of payment on three postal orders presented at his office. These orders had been stolen, and, as the sub-postmaster's action enabled the stolen orders to be cashed by the thief, the sub-postmaster was required to refund the 10s. In appealing against this decision he complained that his commission and allowances were inadequate. On a review of the facts I saw no reason for increasing his commission and I directed that he should be so informed.

  Education of Deaf and Dumb.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he proposes to introduce legislative proposals dealing with the education of the deaf and dumb, to which his attention was called last session by the deputation introduced by Earl Egerton of Tatton.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board of Education are considering the advisability of introducing legislative proposals dealing with the education of the blind on the lines which were put before me last session by the deputation introduced by Earl Egerton of Tatton. I am not at present in a position to make any definite statement on the matter.

  Education Act—Payment of Grants.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the portion of grant falling due for the period between the end of the financial year of a non-provided school and the appointed day in accordance with Schedule 5 of the Education Act, 1902, will be paid to the managers immediately after the appointed day.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The portion of Parliamentary grant payable to the managers of a school not provided by a local education authority, in respect of the period to the appointed day, will not be paid until after the close of the school year, when the full returns for the calculation of the grant are in the hands of the Board of Education.

  Accidents in Shipyards.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say how many fatal and non-fatal accidents occurred in the shipyards in the United Kingdom in 1902, and the number of persons employed in the same employment during that year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The number of accidents reported as having occurred in shipbuilding during 1902 was 10,987, of which 118 were fatal accidents. Of the

  897
  non-fatal accidents 1,070 were reportable to the certifying surgeon, and 9,799 reportable to the inspector only. These figures do not include accidents in a few incidental industries—principally in sawmills—which are carried on in shipyards. The returns of persons employed during 1902 are not yet ready; but, according to the last available returns, there were 150,727 persons employed in shipyards.

  Prisons Regulations—Aliens.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain why, in the new order as to prisons, the instruction in trades and general education hitherto given to prisoners is in future to be withheld from alien prisoners; and whether any, and, if so, what, useful occupation is to be allowed for these prisoners in substitution for the instruction hitherto given.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) If the hon. Member is referring to a paragraph which appeared yesterday in certain newspapers, I may inform him that the statement that there has been any new rule or order with regard to alien prisoners is entirely without foundation.

  India—Import Duties on British Goods.
  Sin JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will now consider the advisability of imposing Excise duties on other goods than cotton goods entering India, and of removing the protective effect of the import duties in the case of other British goods as well as cotton goods.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) As I stated in my answer to a similar Question asked by my hon. friend on the 13th March, 1902, I can hold out no hope of imposing such Excise duties as are suggested.

  India—Treatment of Rabies.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government
  † See (4) Debates, civ 1266
  898
  have any Reports affording a comparison between the results of the inoculations at the Pasteur Institute at Kasauli and those in the treatment of rabies by the vapour baths, appliances for which have already been supplied; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have not received any Reports on the subject from the Government of India, but I will ascertain from the Viceroy whether any information is available.

  Transvaal—Taxation of the Mines Rebatements.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in assessing for taxation the mines in the Transvaal, a deduction is to be allowed in respect of the exhaustion of the mine; and, if so, whether in the next Budget he will afford the same privilege to the mines in this country, which are at present assessed on the gross profits without any deduction in respect of exhaustion.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) By the Transvaal law, in estimating the profits of a gold mine for the purpose of the special tax imposed thereon, an allowance is made for the exhaustion of the capital actually expended on the development of the mine, the allowance being the yearly amount which, if accumulated at 3 per cent. compound interest for the estimated life of the mine, would replace the capital at the end of that period. I think this allowance is different in principle from an allowance in respect of the exhaustion of the mine itself, which is what the hon. Member suggests.

  Education—Irish and Scotch Equivalent Grants.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the principle and give the computation by which the amounts of the Irish and Scotch equivalent grants are obtained, with reference to the Education Act, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The estimated net amount of the additional grant in England under the Education

  899
  Act, 1902, for 1903–4, on the assumption that a full and normal year's provision was required, would be £1,352,000. Scotland and Ireland are to receive grants of £186,000 and £185,000 a year respectively, these sums being the proportionate amounts reckoned on the population of each country compared with that of England, according to the last census. In the case of Scotland there has been included in the general aid grant a further sum of £26,000 for the year, or £13,000 for the half-year, which was guaranteed in 1897 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to maintain the fee grant in Scotland at 12s. a head.

  Naval Schoolmasters.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the schoolmasters in the Navy whose position, etc., is now under consideration include those who hold only the rank of chief petty officer; and whether, seeing that, while Army schoolmasters receive promotion to warrant rank after eight years' service and schoolmasters in Marine schools after twelve years' service, schoolmasters in the Royal Navy receive no such promotion by period of service, he can take steps to give similar promotion to naval schoolmasters.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman). All naval schoolmasters are chief petty officers, head schoolmasters are warrant officers. The reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question is that the conditions of the naval service do not admit of the system of promotions suggested in the Question being adopted.

  The "Caledonia" Training Ship.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's ship "Caledonia," the boys' training ship in the Forth, has been recently condemned for the second time as unfit for further service, and of the danger to the boys on board involved in leaving this ship any longer in commission in her present condition, he will state when the decision to transfer the boys to corrugated iron huts to be erected on shore will be carried into effect; and whether this is a permanent
  900
  arrangement; and what means will be adopted until such arrangements are carried out to safeguard the lives of those on board the "Caledonia."
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The "Caledonia" is not in a dangerous condition, and will be fit for occupation until the shore establishment is erected. This establishment will be of a permanent character. The buildings will not be of corrugated iron, but of a more sanitary and durable material, probably brick with tile roof. Negotiations are now in progress for a site, and it is hoped that the transfer to the shore may be effected within two years.

  Preparation of Jurors' Lists—Scale of Remuneration.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that county secretaries entrusted with the preparation of the jurors' list, under Section 83 (7) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, have charged an initial fee of £10 for each rural district in their county, and that in the case of unions overlapping two or three counties, this expense has increased from £10 per union heretofore to £30 per union in the case of a union overlapping three counties, and to £20 per union in the case of a union overlapping two counties; and whether, in view of the Resolutions passed by the Boards of Guardians last year on the subject, he will consider the advisability of repealing this Sub-section.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am not aware whether the practice is as stated in the Question. The scale of remuneration is fixed by an Order issued by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council. If any alteration in the scale is considered necessary it can be effected by an amendment of the Order in Council, without legislation.

  Local Government Board Appointments for Poor Law Officers.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in filling up vacancies on the staff of inspectors and auditors of

  901
  the Local Government Board, he will consider the advisability, in view of the request of the Poor Law Association of Ireland and the Boards of Guardians of Ireland, of giving a share of such appointments to Poor Law officers.
  Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In filling vacancies on its staff the Local Government Board proceeds on the principle of selecting the persons whom it considers best qualified for these positions.

  Bequest of the late James Murphy.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland have refused to take any steps to obtain from the trustees of the estate of the late James Murphy a sum of £50, demised in 1895 to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Michelstown, although the Commissioners have been furnished with the information they required and sufficient assets are available; and, if not, if he will inquire into this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have referred this matter to the Commissioners, who inform me that they did not consider the case was one calling for their intervention. I may add that the Government has no authority to question the action of the Commissioners.

  Irish Land Bill—Suggested Drainage Scheme.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the overflow of the River Shannon has flooded miles of country from Carrick-on-Shannon to Portumna; and whether, in view of the neglect of arterial drainage in the past, he will consider the advisability of introducing in the new Land Bill a clause enabling a complete drainage system of the country to be set up either by districts or counties or both.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I cannot undertake to overload the Land Bill by introducing into it proposals for dealing with the question of arterial drainage, which is a large one in itself.

  Boyle Union—Cost of Printing and Advertising.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cost of the printing and advertising bill of Boyle Union, Boyle No. 1 District Council, and Boyle No. 2 District Council, for the three years ending 31st March, 1900, 31st March, 1901, and 31st March, 1902, respectively; and whether, seeing that for some of these years no contract for supplying these articles existed, no bonds were perfected, and no tenders were regularly taken, the attention of the auditor will be called to these proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)

  Year ended 31st March.

  1900.

  1901.

  1902.

  Boyle Union:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Printing

  6

  18

  0

  17

  19

  0

  11

  12

  4

  Books and Forms

  70

  17

  3

  36

  2

  2

  30

  15

  3

  Advertisements

  23

  11

  0

  42

  17

  0

  41

  18

  8

  Boyle No. 1 District:—

  Printing

  6

  17

  1

  15

  19

  1

  11

  12

  4

  Books

  30

  12

  4

  9

  19

  3

  3

  8

  0

  Advertisements

  23

  11

  0

  42

  17

  0

  41

  18

  8

  Boyle No. 2 District:—

  Printing

  3

  16

  3

  3

  8

  0

  3

  2

  0

  Books

  30

  0

  7

  11

  19

  7

  8

  15

  10

  Advertisements

  51

  9

  0

  116

  17

  9

  80

  10

  7

  The printing in each case was done according to contract, but no bond, I am informed, was perfected as the contract was considered too small. It is open to any person interested to appear before the auditor on the occasion of his audit of the accounts of these bodies and lodge an objection to any item to which he takes exception.

  Irish Valuation Returns.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a summary from the Irish Valuation Returns of the total valuation of land in Ireland, of the valuation of land held in demesne, in tenancy, and in grazing farms.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The total valuation of land in Ireland is £9,005,000. There is no official information available showing the distribution of this land under the headings mentioned.

  Ireland—Inquiries under the Labourers Acts.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  903
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the clauses in the Land Purchase Bill referring to agricultural labourers in Ireland, he will lay upon the Table of the House the general reports of the Local Government Board inspectors for Ireland on all inquiries held under the Labourers Acts within the eighteen months ended the 31st March last.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The recommendations in the reports of the inspectors are communicated to the local authorities, but the reports otherwise are confidential documents, made for the information of the Board, and could not be published as suggested.

  Education—Irish Equivalent Grant.
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, how much, money was allocated to Ireland, and when and in what manner, as Ireland's equivalent for the grants made to England out of the Imperial purse under 33 and 34 Vic, c. 75, Section 9, as amended by 60 and 61 Vic, c. 16; and whether any, and, if so, how much, money was allocated to Ireland, and when and in what manner, as Ireland's equivalent for the grants made to England out of the Imperial purse under the Voluntary Schools Act, 60 and 61 Vic, c. 5, Section 1.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The answer is in the negative in both cases.
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact as borne on the Education Estimates for England, that England, in lieu of the grants under the Acts of 1870 and 1897, is to receive under the Education Act of 1902 half a rear's grant amounting to £1,100,000, or at the rate of £2,200,000 a year, he will explain on what basis Ireland is only to receive as an equivalent an annual fixed sum of £185,000, and state how much Ireland would have been entitled to receive on the principle of nine-hundredth parts of the probate duty under The Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1888.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The estimated net amount of the additional grant in England under the Education
  904
  Act, 1902, for 1903–4, on the assumption that a full and normal year's provision were required, would be £1,352,000. The proportionate amount for Ireland reckoned on the population of the two countries according to the last census works out to £185,000. Nine-eightieths of £1,352,000 would, of course, be £152,100.

  War Gratuity for Kimberley Town Guard.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONELGEORGEKEMP: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that members of the Kimberley Town Guard who served throughout the siege of Kimberley did not receive the war gratuity, he will take steps to grant it to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It was decided on the advice of Lord Kitchener that the war gratuity was not issuable to persons who were not employed with Imperial troops beyond the borders of their own colonies, and it is not possible to break the rule in favour of the Kimberley Town Guard.

  Army Schools—Denominational Teaching.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in Army schools Nonconformist teachers are required to give, and the children of Nonconformist parents to receive, instruction in books written with reference to the distinctive formularies of the Established Church; and whether he will issue orders that the use of such books shall be confined to the scholars belonging to the denomination concerned, and to the hours during which facilities are given, under paragraph 1,315 of the King's Regulations, to chaplains and officiating clergymen; and that at examinations of candidates for appointment as teachers in Army schools questions upon the text of any manual issued by or from a denominational society may cease to be set.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is not clear to what instruction the hon. Member refers. There would appear to be no objection to his suggestions, but it would be preferable if he would explain in a detailed communication to the War Office the specific points at issue.

  Army Clothing Factory—Fair Wage Resolution.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to secure the observance of the Fair Wage Resolution in the case of the women employed at the Army Clothing Factory in altering Royal Artillery uniforms into those worn by the Militia; and whether he will state what their remuneration is.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick) The operation referred to consists in putting on a new collar and using cord instead of braid. The payment made is 1s. 2d. This is considered a fair remuneration considering the time occupied.

  South African War—Compensation Claims.
  MR. CARVIL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the claims of individuals in respect of depredations by the Boers or of property commandeered by the late Transvaal Government during the war have been paid in whole or in part, while the claims of companies as such have been repudiated in toto; and whether, seeing that the shares in these companies are owned in the main by British subjects, he can take stops to have this difference set aside: and will he say whether any, and if so, what distinction is drawn between companies registered in England and those of the Transvaal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) These payments are being made as an act of grace, and without admitting any liability. The object which the Government has had in view in making such payments is to assist individual loyalists who have suffered direct losses dining the war, in the same way as assistance is being given to Boers under the terms of surrender. Acting on this principle, claims from companies and large firms have not been entertained, and no distinction has been drawn between companies registered in England and those registered in the Transvaal.

  Housing of the Working Classes Bill— Date of Introduction
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if
  906
  he can now say when the Bill to deal with certain matters affecting the housing of the working classes will be introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I hope my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will be able to introduce this Bill shortly after Easter.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Thursday Island Coaling Station.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Imperial coaling station of Thursday Island is inspected by or under the orders of Major-General Sir Edward Hutton, commanding the Federal Forces of Australia; and, if so, whether he has received any official reports showing that the garrison has been brought up to establishment strength.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The Commonwealth of Australia is responsible for the provision of the personnel of the garrison of Thursday Island, and any reports by the General Officer Commanding concerned would be addressed to the Commonwealth Government. The latest returns which have been forwarded on for the information of the War Office do not show any reduction in the personnel of the garrison.

    Recruiting Regulations.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to securing that no man shall now be enlisted under the age of eighteen years, he will consider the advisability of amending the attestation paper by placing before the recruit his liability to punishment for a false answer as to age; of carrying into practice Sections 33, 34, and 99 of the Army Act; and of the addition of a question, asking for an opinion as to age, to Army Forms B 64 and 97, as well as forwarding these forms whenever practicable to the School Board under whom the recruit was schooled.
    LORD STANLEY: I am desired by my right hon. friend to say that as regards

    907
    the liability to punishment, his legal advisers inform him that conviction for making a false statement as to age cannot be held good unless the man pleads guilty, or the prosecution proves that he knew his correct age, a man's actual age not being a matter within his personal knowledge. The suggested amendment to the attestation papers would not therefore appear advisable. As regards Army Forms B 64 and 97, information as to the age of the recruit is already stated on them. Reference to the School Boards for their opinion would throw an immense amount of labour on the School Boards without any certain result.
    MR. PIRIE: What steps have been taken to give effect to the Resolution passed by the House on this subject.
    LORD STANLEY: My right hon. friend has stated them already.
    MR. PIRIE: No.

    Soldiers Discharged in South Africa.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many soldiers have been discharged in South Africa up to the present time; and how many of these men have joined the South African Constabulary.
    LORD STANLEY: The number of men discharged in South Africa up to the 31st December, 1902, the latest date up to which we have got information, was 8,855. I am not aware how many of these men have joined the South African Constabulary.

    Medals for Tientsin Volunteers.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officers and men of the Tientsin Volunteer Corps, who served at and about Tientsin during the months of June and July, 1900, have notified His Britannic Majesty's Consul at Tientsin that they decline to accept the medal China, 1900, now offered to them because the bar for the relief of Peking has been refused to them; and whether, in view of the services rendered by these Volunteers,
    908
    he will authorise the grant to this corps of the relief of Peking bar with the Chinese medal.
    LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my right hon. friend's reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Aberdeen on the 27th ultimo. He will find the bar has been granted.

    Forth Division Volunteer Royal Engineers.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the mine fields between Kinghorn and Leith are laid by and under the control of the Forth Division Volunteer Royal Engineers, Submarine Miners, and that the officer commanding this corps holds the position of French Consul at Leith; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of preventing knowledge of such a character being in the possession of a gentleman who acts as Consul to a foreign power.
    LORD STANLEY: My right hon. friend is aware of the fact stated in the Question and the necessary action is under consideration.

    Prevention of Illegal Trawling.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what gunboats, tonnage and speed of same, are provided by the Admiralty for the purpose of enforcing the law against the depredations of poaching trawling companies.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The following vessels are at present available for fishery duty—The "Hearty," Special Service Vessel, 1,300 tons, 12½ knots speed; The "Jackal," Special Service Vessel, 750 tons, 11¾ knots speed; The "Alarm," "Hebe," "Onyx," "Renard," "Skipjack," "Spanker," and "Speedwell," gunboats, 700to 800 tons, and 15 to 20 knots speed; and the "Landrail," gunboat, 950 tons, 11½ knots speed. There are also seven steam and thirteen sailing coast guard cruisers.
    † See page 470
    MR. GATHCART WASON: Is there then no truth in the rumour that the services of the "Jackal," have been dispensed with?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot say.

    Supplementary Lieutenants.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the number of supplementary lieutenants on the 1st October, 1899; how many of these took part in war operations, since that date, in South Africa, China, or West Africa; how many of those who took part in such operations have been promoted to the active list of commanders by the exercise of power reserved to the Admiralty by Order in Council of 29th June, 1895; and whether he can state the names of those officers so promoted.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The number of supplementary lieutenants on the list on the 1st October, 1899, was 137. Seven of these officers have taken part in war operations since that date. Three have been promoted to the rank of commander on the active list, namely—Lieutenants the Hon. E. S. H. Boyle and G. P. E. Hunt for services in South Africa, and Lieutenant Gaunt for services in Samoa.

    Boer Prisoners in Ceylon,
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that a number of Boer prisoners including an Irishman named A. O'Brien, are still confined in Ceylon with black criminals there, he will state on what grounds these men are still imprisoned; and will they be released immediately, in view of the general amnesty in South Africa.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Nineteen of the irreconcilable prisoners of war in Ceylon having been guilty of insubordination have been lodged, for safe custody, in the military prison at Colombo where they are not in contact with black prisoners. I have been in communica-
    910
    tion with the Governor as to allowing these men to proceed to Java and have reason to believe that this will shortly be arranged.

    South African Tariffs.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any information as to the preferential tariff proposed by the Bloemfontein Conference to be given to British goods imported into South Africa.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to say more at present than that the draft Convention for a South African Customs Union embodies a tariff giving preferential rates to the Mother Country.

    Cotton Cultivation in the West Indies.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the publication of the Imperial Department of Agriculture for the West Indies called "Information relating to Cotton Cultivation in the West Indies, 1903," is not to be obtained in London, and no copies can arrive in England for some time, he can state how many estates in the West Indies which were previously devoted to the cultivation of sugar are now being devoted to the cultivation of cotton.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: A copy of the publication in question has been sent to the hon. Member, and two copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I am informed that more copies can be obtained from the West India Committee, Billiter Square Buildings, E.G., and that the London publishers, Messrs. Dulan and Company, will shortly have a fresh supply.

    Transvaal and Orange River Finances.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the current year for the administration of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies, and also for Rhodesia.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Summary Estimates of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony will be included in the Papers which will shortly be laid before Parliament. The Rhodesia Estimates will also be laid in due course.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will they be laid separately or only as part of the Blue-book?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already promised to lay some Papers before Parliament, and the Summary Estimates will be included in the first batch. Rhodesia will come later.
    MR. LOUGH: Shall we get them before the Budget is introduced?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

    High Treason Trials in South Africa.
    MR. MCGOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the number of Englishmen and other British subjects, including natives of Cape Colony, who fought on the side of the Boers during the late war in South Africa, and were captured or surrendered at its close, he will state how many of these men have been tried for high treason.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to give the exact figures, but I believe that there were over 10,000 in Cape Colony alone, and a large number in Natal. Of the 10,000 something over 8,000 men were convicted or pleaded guilty. The remainder were acquitted.

    Austrian Sugar Industry.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Austrian Government has approved a system of restricting the output of sugar similar to that prevailing in Russia, so as to increase the advantage it can derive from the clause setting up a surtax in the Brussels Convention; whether Germany has declined to adopt this system, and is of opinion that it creates a bounty and
    912
    exposes Austrian sugar to retaliatory duties; and whether any correspondence has taken place with the Austrian Government on the matter.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): A law has been passed in Austria for the regulation of the amount of sugar allowed to be produced for the home market. Baron Thielmann, the German Secretary of the Treasury, is reported to have stated that the Federated Governments did not as yet see any reason to propose for Germany any such measure, which would mean the establishment of a monopoly for existing factories, and to have added that the decision of the question whether or not this law creates a bounty would rest with the Permanent Commission at Brussels. No correspondence has taken place on the subject with the Austrian Government.
    MR. LOUGH: Have the Government expressed any opinion on it.
    LORD CRANBORNE: We are not called upon to express any opinion. That is a matter for the Permanent Commission.

    Imported Foreign Flour.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any drawback is given on imported foreign flour when re-exported in the same condition as it is imported; what drawback is given if the flour is landed and re-bagged; what is the approximate cost of landing and re-bagging as compared with the drawback; and whether there has been any decline in the transhipment trade in flour at ports of the United Kingdom since the imposition of the corn tax.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; as to the second part, drawback of 5d. per cwt. is given. The Board of Customs have no information as to the cost of landing and re-bagging; the cost, however, probably varies at different places according to local circumstances. There are no

    913
    records of the quantities of foreign and colonial flour transhipped at ports in the United Kingdom before the imposition of the corn duties, and I am consequently unable to state whether there has since been any decline in the transhipment trade in that article. During the period from 14th April, 1902, till the 31st March the transhipments of flour under bond amounted to 112,571 cwts.

    School Board Accounts.
    MR. LUKE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether on counties the liabilities of School Boards up to the appointed day under the Education Act will be apportioned and charged on each School Board district; and whether the proportion of grant up to such appointed day, together with any credit balance, will be allocated to the credit of each such district.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): I am consulting the Law Officers of the Crown on certain financial questions arising on the Act, and I must ask leave to defer a reply to the hon. Member until their opinion has been received.

    Regulation Acts—Great Southern and Western Railway Company and its Employees
    MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have issued forms to their employees for their signatures, which pledge them to secrecy; and whether he can take any steps to prevent the men being debarred from making complaints under the Railway Servants (Hours) Act, 1893, and the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): My attention was directed to a newspaper statement on the subject, and I communicated with the railway company. In reply, I am informed that
    914
    there was no intention whatever to debar workmen from exercising their legal rights under Acts of Parliament. The Company's workmen are, in fact, not asked to sign the circular, which was simply intended to prevent the clerical staff from communicating the company's confidential business to persons outside the office.

    Sub Post-Offices on Licensed Premises.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of sub post-offices there are on licensed premises in the United Kingdom.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir; I can add nothing to the reply I gave the hon. Member on this subject on the 19th March.†

    London Postal Telephone Service.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state how much of the money voted by Parliament for the establishment of a Post Office telephone service in London has been extended, the number of subscribers in London who now use the Post-Office system, and the number who have agreed to subscribe but who are not yet provided with the service; and whether, seeing that persons in the South Western District who contracted to subscribe some months ago have not yet been afforded telephone facilities, he can state when the telephone service for London is likely to be complete.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The expenditure on the London telephone service to the 28th February amounted to £1,067,000. A considerable part of this amount is for plant and stores which have, not yet been brought into use, but have been provided to meet the future requirements of the system. Seven exchanges have been opened since the 1st March, 1901, and 8,749 telephones are now in use in connection with these exchanges. About 2,000 agreements for other lines are on hand, and from 150 to 200 new lines are being
    † See (4) Debates cxix., 1230.

    915
    brought into use every week. Probably the cases of delay which the hon. Member has in view have arisen from the difficulty of obtaining way leaves from the local authorities; but if he will furnish me with particulars I shall be glad to have special inquiry made on the subject. Four other important exchanges will be opened in the course of this year, and arrangements are in progress for the establishment of several others. In view of the increasing demand for new exchanges, and of the rapid development of the existing exchanges, it is not possible to name any date for the final completion of the Post Office system in London.

    Hampton Court Road Footways.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire whether His Majesty's Office of Works will take steps to require the London United Tramways Company to make footpaths on either side of Hampton Court Road, east of Garrick's Villa, for the safety of foot passengers before that company is allowed to open its tramway system along that road for traffic.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The scheme for the widening of the Hampton Court Road was approved by the Office of Works at the special request of the Hampton District Council. Suitable footpaths are included in the scheme; the footpath on the park side, however, cannot be fully completed until the proposed new iron railing which is now being made is put up. The Office of Works have received no representations that any danger will attend the use of the tramway meanwhile.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: But will the tramway be opened before the footways are properly completed?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: That is a question for the local authorities rather than for the Office of Works.

    Pacific Cable.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated loss on the working of the Pacific Cable for the coming financial
    916
    year; what portion of the loss will fall on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom; whether the Admiralty is responsible for the decision to take the cable viâ Fanning Island; what is the increased cost of construction by this route as compared with the alternative route viâ Honolulu; and what is the amount of local business obtained at Fanning Island.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): The loss on the working of the Pacific Cable for the coming financial year is estimated, on the basis of the present receipts, and after allowing for interest and sinking fund and depreciation, at about £95,000. Five - eighteenths of the actual loss will fall on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. The route viâ Fanning Island which the cable follows was adopted on the recommendation of the Pacific Cable Committee, over which Lord Selborne presided; and was selected in order that the cable might touch on no territory which was not British. It is estimated that if the cable had been taken viâ Honolulu the cost of its construction would have been about the same as that which has been incurred; the only local business at Fanning Island is practically that arising from passing vessels, Lloyds having established a signal station on the island.

    Coleraine Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. HUNTER CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Irish Local Government Board has been called to the recent proceedings before the Coleraine Rural District Council in the Coleraine district, where an occupant of a labourer's cottage was charged before the Council with permitting his daughters to take in sewing, and was induced, under threat of eviction, to promise that this should be discontinued, and that his daughters should work in the fields; and that the Council have adopted a form of agreement for the letting of labourers' cottages, binding the family of the labourer to work at agricultural work when required; and will he say if the Local Government Board has sanctioned the form of such agreements; and, if not, will he take

    917
    steps to prevent such conditions being introduced in the future.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): My hon. friend has been misinformed in respect to the facts. A man named Leighton applied to the Council for a cottage. One or two councillors observed that he was not an agricultural labourer, and that his daughters were shirtmakers. He satisfied the Council that he and his family had always worked for farmers, and was accepted as a tenant of a cottage. He has not been threatened with eviction. The form of agreement made with tenants of cottages does not bind the family in the manner suggested.

    Irish Townpark Tenants.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of including in the new Land Bill a clause forbidding the imposition of large percentages of increase upon the improvements made by tenants of townparks in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If a townpark is let and used as an agricultural or pastoral holding, or as partly agricultural and partly pastoral, a rent can be fixed under the same conditions as in the case of an ordinary farm. If, on the contrary, a townpark is not so let, it is in the same position as other holdings which are excluded from the Land Law Acts. No alteration of the existing law is therefore called for.

    Irish Assistant Teachers.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that assistant teachers of over fifteen years' service appointed to principalships since 1st April, 1900, and whose schools maintain an average of over thirty pupils, who were included in the first class of national teachers, are graded under the new rules as third grade teachers, their pay being less than the maximum salary attached to that grade; and whether he will take steps to include these teachers in the first grade.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the cases of assistants highly classed
    918
    under the rules hitherto in force, but not receiving full class salary, may be specially considered on their promotion to principalships. It does not follow that such teachers will be placed in the grades corresponding to their classes, nor could any such rule as the hon. Member suggests be made. The grade of teachers depends on training, ability, and general attainments, good service, seniority, and the average attendance at the school in which the teacher is serving, and all these matters must be considered when determining the grade of an assistant on promotion to a principalship.

    Irish Local Government Auditors— Major Eccles.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the date of appointment as an auditor of the Local Government Board for Ireland of Major Eccles; what qualifications this gentleman possessed, and on whose recommendation was he appointed; and, seeing that this auditor for two years failed to discover the irregularities of the Mullingar Asylum funds, will he say why it is proposed to retain his services.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Major Eccles was appointed auditor in June, 1900. He had previously acted, temporarily, in the same capacity, and satisfied the Civil Service Commissioners as to his qualifications. The suggestion that there was remissness on his part in tracing these irregularities has no foundation in fact. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question put to me on the 17th December last.†

    Sneem Evictions.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state under what circumstances Mrs. Ellen Mahony, a widow, whose holding was at Dreenaveerig, near Sneem, was evicted on 26th March.
    MR. WYNDHAM: She refused to pay any rent since the death of her husband some years ago. She was not a tenant, and the ejectment was on title.
    † See (4) Debates, cxvi. 1511.
    MR. BOLAND: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 26th March, Cornelius Moriarty was evicted from his house in the village of Sneem although he was willing to pay rent for the house, his tender being refused; and whether he can state how many families have been evicted from the thatched houses in Sneem during the last six years.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In this case also the eviction was on title. Moriarty never paid rent, and, I am informed, made no offer to pay any. The reply to the concluding inquiry is, three.

    Warden Estate, Sneem.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at an inquiry held in Kenmare in March, 1902, the erection of a cottage on a portion of the Warden Estate at Sneem was opposed by the landlords, although the bailiff admitted at the inquiry that a threat had been made to evict John O'Neill if he gave shelter to his brother, Patrick O'Neill, who had been previously evicted; and whether, seeing that Robert O'Sullivan, of Sneem, was evicted for having given shelter to Patrick O'Neill, who was willing to pay rent for a house in the village, and Patrick O'Neill was evicted on 26th March, and in view of the proposals in the Irish Land Bill, he can take steps to secure the reinstatement of this man.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The bailiff did not, I am informed, make the admission mentioned in the Question. The proposals dealing with the reinstatement of evicted tenants are contained in Section 2 (d) of the Bill.

    Brown Hall Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board will take steps to take over the grazing lands on the Brown Hall estate, near Balla, County Mayo, now about being disposed of by the Court of Chancery, which have been in the hands of a large glazier since 1900, for the purpose of enlarging the holdings of the
    920
    agricultural tenants on the estate who are now about purchasing their holdings.
    I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the efforts made by the tenants on the Brown Hall estate, near Balla, County Mayo, to obtain turbary on several neighbouring estates; and to the fact that there are on that estate, and on a grazing tract held for the past two years by a resident in the town of Balla, about fifteen acres of excellent turbary; and whether, seeing that the remainder of this estate is about being sold to the tenants by the Court of Chancery, and that the tenants are prepared to give the same amount of purchase money for the turbary and grazing lands as they are giving for their holdings, he can take steps to have these fifteen acres divided among them.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This estate is administered in the Court of the Land Judge. The proceedings for the sale to the tenants of their holdings will, it is expected, be shortly completed. I am informed that there is no grazing or bog land available for apportionment amongst the tenants on the estate. The land to which reference is made is let to one of the tenants as an ordinary tenant. The turbary in question is nearly all, so I understand, cut away.

    Irish Land Bill—Future Tenants and Caretakers.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Bill contains any provisions to enable future tenants and caretakers to purchase their holdings.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Future tenants are tenants whose tenancies were created since the passing of the Act of 1881. If they are tenants of holdings to which the Land Law Acts apply—that is to say, broadly, agricultural, or pastoral holdings—they will be entitled to purchase under Clause 1 (1) (a), or, by agreement and sanction, under 1 (1) (b). The words in the Bill "to which the Land Law Acts apply" must not be interpreted as meaning "to which the fair rent provisions of the Land Law Acts apply." Many of the provisions of the Land Law Acts apply to future tenants. Caretakers have no tenure or rights as such. If, however,

    921
    they happen to have been evicted from holdings to which the Land Law Acts apply within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act they will be entitled under Clause 2 (1) (d) to advances for the purchase of parcels of land up to £500, or in special cases £1,000. It is probable that a large number of caretakers come within this class.

    Imprisonment for Contempt of Court.
    MR. M'GOVERN: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that John M'Elligott, who has been confined in Dundalk Gaol since June, 1901, for contempt of court, has no means to employ counsel to make an application for his release; and whether, in view of this man's state of health and of the nature of his contempt, will he take steps to secure his release.
    MR. WYNDHAM: M'Elligott was committed for contempt on a writ of attachment issued by the Master of the Rolls in July, 1901. The nature of the contempt consisted in his having retaken forcible possession of a farm from which he had been evicted. The Government has no power to act in the manner suggested in the Question. The prisoner's health is good, and I am informed that his wife, who is still in possession of the holding, has ample means to enable her to employ a counsel to make application for his release.
    MR. M'GOVERN: Is it a fact that this man offered to pay the rent of the farm from which he was evicted?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Two years in gaol for contempt of court!

    Glengarriff Burial Ground.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the fact that there is a main road between the new Roman Catholic Church at Glengarriff and the burial ground, he will consider the advisability of vesting the burial ground in the Bantry Rural District Council under the provisions of the Irish Church Act of 1869.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Question does not contain sufficient information to
    922
    enable the burial ground in question to be identified. If the burial ground attached to the Church described as "Holy Trinity, Glengarriff," is referred to, its transfer to the District Council could only be made by the Representative Church Body.

    White Estate near Bantry.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state approximately when the sale of the White Estate (near Bantry) will take place.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Judge has interrogated the solicitor having carriage of the sale of this estate and is satisfied that he is in no way to blame for any delay that may have taken place in the proceedings. A large amount of work yet remains to be done and it cannot be stated, even approximately, when the sale will take place.

    The Penrhyn Quarry Dispute.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, what steps the Government propose to take in view of the failure of the recent negotiations for the settlement of the Penrhyn quarry dispute?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that this matter has been most carefully watched by His Majesty's Government; and my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade will, as he has more than once stated, intervene in the direction of conciliation if he sees there is the smallest prospect of such intervention leading to good results. Intervention where there is no such prospect would do more harm than good.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a day so as to enable the House to express its opinion on the subject?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not imagine there is a single topic such as this, which is chiefly of local interest, which has been discussed so often in this House. I do not think it would be possible to assign a day for the third or fourth discussion.

    INCEST BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 104.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 104.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures; Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Boland, and had appointed in substitution Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. O'Mara.
    Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen members in respect of the Sale of Adulterated Butter Bill: Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas, Major Bagot, Mr. Bond, Earl of Dalkeith, Air. Dalziel, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Gilhooly, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Kearley, Mr. O'Neill, and Mr. O'Shaughnessy.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.

  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to the administration of Burghs in Scotland," presented by Mr. Asher; supported by Mr. John Morley, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Robert Wallace,
  924
  and Colonel Denny; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

  POST OFFICE SITKS BILL.
  "To enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in London and Bristol for the public service, and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Austen Chamberlain; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to lie printed. [Bill 136.]
  HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to the Hall-marking of Foreign Plate," presented by Mr. Samuel Roberts; supported by Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Sir Benjamin Stone, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, and Mr. Remnant; to be road a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
  HIGHWAYS BILL.
  "To amend the Law for the administration of Highways," presented by Mr. Henry Hobhouse; supported by Sir John Dorington, Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Mr. Bill, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, and Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

  SUPPLY (CTVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES).
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE HOUSING PROBLEM.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that, in moving the Resolution which stood in his name on the Paper, he wished at once to state that he did so in no spirit of personal hostility to the Minister charged with the administration of the Housing Acts; on the contrary what he proposed to endeavour to show was that the Acts, as far as they had been administered, had not worked unsuccessfully, and he desired to urge upon Parliament the importance of carrying them out more effectively. The question was one of national importance, because the character of the new century would be largely decided by the kind of houses

925
out of which the children came. Housing was no longer a mere question of clearing slums. It was not a matter of the dwellings of the working classes alone; it threatened to be a question of the housing of the people generally. Legislation became a farce if its express injunctions were not enforced by those entrusted with the administration. The obvious intention of the Acts was that when a dwelling-house became unfit for human habitation there should be no delay in obtaining a closing order. Since 1885, from the Central Government downwards, the authorities had had all the powers they needed for this purpose; but that the state of things in town and country was grave they had a reminder in the fact that the Alien Commission had unintentionally largely resolved itself into a housing inquiry. How came it, then, that the Housing Acts had to a large extent remained a dead letter, and that the very effective powers given to the authorities for the abatement of nuisances had failed? The fact remained that large numbers of the working classes had been driven from houses declared by the local authorities to be insanitary to overcrowd other houses hitherto sanitary. In both town and country cases had occurred in which families had not merely been driven into the street, but had had to go into the workhouse for shelter, because they could not get a house to live in. That was not all, for there was an acute housing problem in all the large villa districts near London, as well as in the most fashionable watering places. He could not help thinking that the reason for this state of affairs might well be explained by the old proverb that what was everybody's business was nobody's business.
Practical men, who had to deal with housing were met with an obstacle on the threshold, viz., the absence of any single central housing authority. It was true that both the Local Government Board and the Home Office had some part in the administration of these Acts. But the Local Government Board, which was the Department that Lad most to do with housing, had not a single officer whose sole duty it was to look after the administration of the Housing Acts. There was no person or department in
926
existence, in connection with either the Local Government Board or the Home Office, which studied the housing question as a whole, which looked after the housing needs of the country, which inquired into the deficiency of house room, which investigated the extent of overcrowding, or which sought to put an end to the evils of insanitation. Had any effort been made to carry out the obvious intention of the Housing Acts that when a dwelling house was unfit for human habitation there should be no delay in closing it, whether in connection with a housing scheme or not? The fact was, neither the Local Government Board nor the Home Office had a Housing Intelligence Department, and had such a department existed the census definitions as to a house would not have been so misleading, for the department would not have allowed returns to be made which represented a single house as several houses, according to the number of people living in it. Even with this imperfect method of computation, the census of 1901 showed that the general conclusions drawn from the census of 1891, as to overcrowding, had not been upset, and that the improvement in this matter in ten years had been hopelessly inadequate. The figures of the 1901 census were not all available, so I must use the figures of the census of 1891. Taking England and Wales as a whole, the census of 1891 showed that there were 3,250,000 people living in overcrowded dwellings. The census of 1891 showed only:!,000,000 rooms for 969,318 families, including all classes. In Glasgow not less than one-fifth of the people live in one-roomed dwellings, and over half had houses with not more than two rooms. In Edinburgh more than half the homes consisted of one and two rooms, and in Hull, during two years, the population had increased by 9,000 but there were only 1,200 more dwellings, thus showing a deficiency of 4,000 buildings. An official report on Dublin in 1900 showed 10,000 persons in want of accommodation and 6,000 families improperly housed. In Birmingham during the last ten years the number of dwellings rented at 5s. per week had been reduced from 57,000 to 54,000 including the worst slums. In the counties of Northumberland and Durham one-third of the total population, urban

927
and rural, lived in overcrowded houses. Surely these figures justified him in demanding that there should be a highly organised Government Department to deal with this subject. No fresh legislation was required, because Section 29, Sub-section 3 of the Public Health Act, 1890, empowered the Local Government Board
"To make such inquiries as it might see fit in relation to any matter concerning the Public Health in any place."
Under Sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the Housing Act, 1890, the Board had power to take steps to put the Act in force if the local authority neglected to do so. What he complained of was that the administration of the Acts by the Central Government had neither aided active local authorities nor had it stimulated inactive ones. He admitted, however, that when a scheme had been brought before either the Local Government Board or the Home Office, both the Ministers responsible and the permanent officials had given it sympathetic consideration and had facilitated its progress through the Department.
He wished particularly to press upon the House the fact that the question of overcrowding was an administrative one. The evils of over-crowding might thus be described. First it enabled high rents to be obtained, secondly it rendered insanitary houses which were sanitary when not overcrowded, thirdly it created new slums faster than old ones could be removed, and, fourthly, it established among young people a low standard of home life and sanitation. One result of that was that 8,000 men from Manchester were rejected out of 11,000 intending recruits for the Army, on the ground of physical unfitness. Durham, the most overcrowded county in England, was at the head of the list for drunkenness. The death rate in Sheffield from zymotic diseases doubled the average for the whole country. Pauper lunatics were the most numerous where the houses were most overcrowded. The local authorities were busy building isolation hospitals and asylums instead of decent homes for the people, and it was an interesting fact that, while appeals were being made right and left for funds for our hospitals the local authorities never seemed to be aware that such appeals were rendered necessary by the low standard of health which resulted from
928
ill housing. The best way to reduce the cost of the hospitals was to take away the insanitary conditions which so greatly increased the number of preventable cases of sickness. There was another result of overcrowding which very closely concerned the administration of the Local Government Board. It was referred to even fifty years ago by Lord Shaftesbury, when he estimated that, owing to being cooped up in hovels unfit for human habitation, the labouring man was incapacitated by sheer exhaustion during thirty days of the year, and this, at 1s. 6d. per day, represented an annual loss of £2. 5s. It had been noticed that the vitality of men at fifty-seven in Manchester was not equal to that of men at sixty-five in England generally, and that striking fact had been brought out by Dr. Tatham, who pointed out that over-crowding had shortened their lives by eight years. The Royal Commission reported, in 1885, that the general tone of the health of the people was a worse feature of over-crowding than was the encouragement by it of infectious diseases. Those who took an interest in this subject had never yet been able to ascertain the ground upon which the administration of these Acts had been partially entrusted to the Home Office, and partially to the Local Government Board. Surely it would be in the interests of the country as a whole that there should be some guide given by a central Department to the local authorities in the performance of their duties under the Act. Hitherto, unfortunately, there had not been any such arrangement, and, as a consequence, they had but very imperfectly coped with the evils of overcrowding.
He had quoted statistics in regard to overcrowding in towns, but the mischief was not confined to large centres of population. It was quite as bad in rural districts, and it was remarkable that where in a rural district the population had been stationary or diminishing, the supply of houses had been unequal to the demand. Fresh law was not so much required as the enforcement of the existing law. It was strange that in the rural districts, where the capacity for rent paying was lowest, the obstacles in the way of cheap municipal dwellings were greatest. The rate of interest on loans was higher, and

929
the Local Government Board regulations were unsuitable and unnecessarily restrictive. Only two District Councils had actually built cottages, namely, Ixworth and Penshurst. Ireland was ahead of England in rural housing. In that country something like 15,000 municipal cottages had been erected for labourers. These houses were generally built by skilled workmen whose wages ran from 30s. to 33s. per week. The cost of erection was £150 per cottage, and the rents varied from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. per cottage per week.
He might be allowed to show by way of illustration the way in which red tape and apathy prevented the Housing Acts from being carried out. He ventured to think that the Local Government Board could have done a great deal to remove that apathy if they had shown more activity in the administration of the statutes. In November 1895, a motion was made at the Parish Council of Penshurst in favour of building cottages. The motion was rejected; in April 1896, a parish committee was appointed to consider the subject; in July 1896, the Committee reported that twenty cottages were needed for workpeople working within a mile of the village; in October 1896, the Parish Council called upon the District Council to put Part III. of the Housing Acts into force; in March 1897, the District Council held an inquiry; in July 1897 the County Council held a public inquiry, granted the necessary certificate to put Housing Acts in force, and declared urgency; in December 1897 a Parish Council and District Council Joint Committee was formed; in November 1898, builders' tenders were accepted by the District Council; in December 1898 plans were sent to the Local Government Board; in March 1899 the Local Government Board held an inquiry—the third public inquiry; and in September 1899 the Local Government Board sanctioned a scheme and a loan. These facts proved that it took five years to build twenty cottages under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would say that he had no power to prevent that. He himself felt, and a great many outside of the House felt, that "where there's a will there's a way," and that if the Local Government Board
930
had had even one mind devoted entirely to the study of the Housing Question throughout the country they would have been able, under the law as it now stood, to create a businesslike system which would not have allowed the ridiculous string of dates which he had unfortunately had to allude to, and which illustrated the difficulties which surrounded the best will of the local authorities to carry out the law and to deal with the evil which lay at the root of the whole social system. His case did not finish with the illustration he had given from Penshurst. The Local Government Board issued model bye-laws with regard to buildings, and these were of a very cast-iron character. His right hon. friend had in the last year or two appointed a committee which had done something to mitigate these verity of these regulations. He might be allowed to instance some of the regulations. Adding an attic bedroom to a workman's cottage involved, according to the Local Government Board regulations, an increase of 50 per cent. in the thickness of the walls up to the first floor. This meant an uncalled for extra outlay of £20 per house. Another irksome Local Government Board restriction required party-walls of cottages to be carried through the roofs. These regulations were not enforced at Manchester or Richmond, but they were enforced at Hornsey with the result that they in-involved a cost of nearly £10 more per house. Surely what was good enough for Manchester, which was a town where special precaution must be taken in these matters, owing to fire risk in a big city, was also good enough for Hornsey. The observation he would venture to make on these regulations was that there was general lack of uniformity, and at the same time lack of elasticity.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONK,): I am quite unable to follow my hon. friend. If he refers to Local Government Board regulations I don't know what he means. If he is referring to by-laws, I would say that they are issued as a model form to local authorities. If he is referring to Local Government Board regulations with regard to loans, that is another matter.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the model by-laws were the basis of the regulations adopted by the local authorities. His contention was that if there had been, as there should be, a governing principle in the action of the Board to produce uniformity they would not have the condition of things which made a cottage at Hornsey cost more than one at Manchester. He would emphasise his point by reminding the right hon. Gentlemen that the bye-laws issued by the Local Government Board prevented the use of many commodities or materials in the erection of these cottages. No doubt a great advance had been made by two things—firstly, by the Local Government Board having comparatively recently allowed buildings to be erected in agricultural districts, and secondly by allowing in the case of Richmond the application of sinking fund moneys for new borrowings, thus enabling Richmond to convert its workmen's dwelling loans from 3¼ per cents. and 3½ per cent. temporary loans into 3 per cent. permanent loans. This made a very considerable difference in the finance of these buildings. This was a great public and national question, and yet it was a question which involved nothing but bricks and mortar and money. He would earnestly appeal to the House to apply itself to the removal of what was a very grave reproach upon the country as a whole. The question of housing was not like temperance, or habitual criminality, or religious education, inextricably mixed up with unfathomable secrets of human nature which rendered it absolutely impossible to know whether the best intentioned legislation must not hinder rather than promote its object. It was a mechanical question and it did not involve the difficulty of trying to make a man temperate by Act of Parliament, which was ten thousand times as difficult as to make twenty people live in two houses instead of one. While intemperance and other evils had been distinctly decreasing, overcrowding had been distinctly increasing. One of the first ways of removing the evils was not to demand fresh legislation, but to enforce the existing law. In order to enforce the existing law they should study the condition of things throughout the whole country through the central Government, and having done that, the public and the legislature would know the true dimensions of the
932
subject, and they would be able to remove what was not only a slur upon this House but what was in his humble judgment a mortal injury to the whole nation. He moved: "That in the opinion of the House, the administration of the Housing Acts by the Departments concerned is unsatisfactory and defective."
Amendment proposed.
"To leave cut from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the administration of the Housing Acts by the departments concerned is unsatisfactory and defective,'—instead thereof."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed.
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the House was under an obligation to the hon. Member for Hoxton for having brought this matter of housing accommodation before them. There was no need for him to rehearse the figures the hon. Member gave as to the gravity of the problem. They were all agreed as to the evil, and they were all anxious to remove it if possible. He need not go into the misery, destitution, immorality, and drunkenness which followed in its train, but he disagreed so far with his hon. friend, if he suggested that they could remedy this without any great difficulty by improving administration. They could peddle with the question, but the rules of the House would not enable them to do anything more. They must all agree that legislation of a sweeping character was necessary before they could deal adequately with this problem. He must confine himself absolutely to questions of administration at present, but he might be permitted to say he was grateful to the President of the Local Government Board for having promised to deal this session with one or two matters recommended by the two Select Committees which reported last year.
His hon. friend referred in the first place to what was a very real and great inconvenience, and that was the fact that in respect to the country the Local Government Board dealt with all questions o housing administration, and

933
that in respect to London the Home Office was the authority which administered the law. As a member of one of the two Committees last year it was pretty closely brought home to him that there was a conflict of view, a differentiation of interpretation, and different rates of expedition in respect of administration resulting from the system of dual authority. He could quote from the Report of the Joint Committee a great many instances of what he had said, but it would suffice if he gave one. In passing, he would say that he was profoundly impressed with the enthusiasm, the spirit of devotion, and the ready knowledge shown by the officials of the Home Office and the Local Government Department who were called before the Committee. They seemed to him to be inspired by a desire to do their best with the work they had in hand. The Committee called before them Mr. Byrne, the principal Clerk of the Home Office, to give evidence in respect of that duty of rehousing the population cast upon railway and other public companies which demolished dwelling-houses in the course of their operations; and he told the Committee that it was the invariable practice of the Home Office, in respect to the new houses, that they should have a veto on the rental which should be paid for each tenement. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Hoxton asked: "In effect, the Home Office claims to be in practice a 'fair rent' court?" And the answer was: "Yes, with regard to this extremely limited class of dwellings." On the other hand, the Committee had before them Mr. Kershaw, an equally assiduous and clever officer, and assistant secretary to the Local Government Board. He referred Mr. Kershaw to what Mr. Bryne had said as to the practice of the Home Office insisting on a right of veto on the rent, and asked him: "You observe that the Secretary of State considers it essential that he should have a veto over the rent?" And his answer was: "Yes, in London." "Quite so; and that if it should ever be held that the provisions of the Model Clause do not enable him to exercise that power, he would strongly recommend to Parliament that the Act should be strengthened so as to provide for it?" "Yes." "That is not the view of the Local Government Board?" "No, because we are not
934
dealing with London, and Mr. Bryne restricted his answer to London." That was scarcely a relevant discrimination, and he only gave it as an illustration of the conflict of authority. If the Home Office thought it desirable to have a veto on the rental of the new houses in London, why should not the Local Government Board have the same veto in the provinces? He should like to ask the right hon. Gentlemen opposite what they had to say to a couple of small—he would not say peddling—but practical recommendations which the Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes made—
"We recommend that the new houses to be provided be suitable for persons of the labouring class and not too ambitious in character and design; we attach much importance to these conditions."
Perhaps the President of the Local Government Board would tell the House what he proposed to do in respect of that recommendation. It was not a matter of legislation here, for the Local Government Board had general powers under the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890. The President of the Local Government Board stated that all the Local Government Board did was to issue model by-laws. That was so. But supposing the local authority in its discretion did not think it was necessary to live up to these model by-laws and proposed a scheme to provide housing on a little less ambitious scale, what was the position of the Local Government Board then? Would the Board reject that scheme or sanction it? Was it true that the Local Government Board would not permit any material deviation from their model by-laws?
MR. WALTER LONG: Not in the manner described by the hon. Gentleman. The regulations to which he refers deal entirely either with matters of sanitation or what may be called the social comforts of the people occupying the houses, such as the requirements of space for each inhabitant, the proper provision of sanitary arrangements, and such things as had been referred to by His Majesty the King the other day—the provision of cupboards in the rooms and lockers for keeping food. These regulations are all to be enforced; but when it comes to buildings of a more ambitious

935
character and design we would not withhold our sanction from any scheme, provided there were proper sanitary arrangements.
DR. MACNAMARA: Then all I can say is that many local authorities are under a serious misapprehension in regard to that matter.
MR. WALTER LONG: This is very important. Statements like that made by the hon. Gentleman have been repeated often and often in this House, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having mentioned the matter, so that I can answer them. I have asked repeatedly in this House and in communications to local authorities for them, but no specific instances have been given to me in which my Department has interfered in order to enforce a more ambitious or a more extravagant class of buildings. The only cases that have ever been brought before me are those to which I have referred, or the case of which the hon. Member for Hoxton spoke, where it is obvious to anyone that the walls which would bear a cottage of one floor would not usually be strong enough to bear a second storey. All the other cases of interference of my Department have been concerned solely with the requirements of public health, or what may be called public safety.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that that was a very proper interference. But be believed it was a fact that in the case of Darwen the local authority, under their own by-laws respecting sanitation, could have provided houses to be let at about 5s. per week; but in order to comply with the Local Government Board's regulations they could not erect the houses on a business basis at a less rent charge than 6s. or 7s. a week. And his hon. friend gave another case where the carrying out of the Local Government Board's regulations ran up the rent more than a shilling a week. It was not desirable that the Local Government Board should insist in these matters in going beyond the question of general sanitation. He asked the right hon. Gentle-
936
man whether it was proposed to carry out the recommendation of the Committee he had read as to the necessity of the houses for the labouring class not being too ambitious in character and design. There was another matter which could be dealt with—the question of the area within which the rehousing must take place. The recommendation No. 6 of the Committee was:—
"It will be observed that the area within which the new houses may be provided under a scheme is left by us wholly to the discretion of the central authority. It may be and we think will be found expedient in some oases to erect the new houses at some considerable distance from the houses demolished, and not necessarily within the jurisdiction of the same local authority."
That applied, in particular, to London, in consequence of the great movement of population from the City to the suburbs. He should be glad to have the views of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the recommendation.
Then there was the recommendation of the other Select Committee which dealt with the question of the repayment of loans by the Local Authorities—not only housing loans but all loans. The period of the repayment of loans was fixed by a number of Statutes under which it might be from ten up to the maximum of sixty years—the latter period being fixed in 1875 with reference to housing and land. Now, the Select Committee made this statement—
"This being the general character of the public statutes dealing with the subject, it is obvious that the discretion left to the Government Departments which fix the actual period for the repayment of each loan, is a very wide one. Although some other Departments have duties in respect of certain loans, by far the greater part of the work of controlling the borrowings of local authorities falls, in England and Wales, upon the Local Government Board."
The Select Committee examined the practice, and they thought that the period in respect of the repayment of certain loans might be reduced: that the maximum period for the repayment of loans contracted for covering the expense of promoting Private Bills ought not to be more than five years; but when it came to the question raised by this Motion, the Committee having regard to the durability of the asset, had no doubt whatever that the period

937
of repayment ought to be extended. It said that—
"In regard to these loans, there is a widespread feeling amongst municipal authorities that the periods allowed for their repayment should be extended. The Committee recognise that there are certain considerations which differentiate the case of housing from that even of public water supply or sewage works, without which the population, even of towns, have contrived—and in some cases still contrive—to exist. If it is true that the supply of houses for the working classes by private enterprise has failed, generally or in certain places, or in regard to certain classes of workmen, to keep pace with the demand for such houses, caused either by increase of population or by demolition of dwellings, the matter appears to be one of exceptional gravity …. Therefore, the Committee feel that it is with regard to loans for rehousing purposes that the strongest claim for a revision of redemption periods can be established, and they proceed to examine what is the strength of that claim."
And finally it was said that there should be an extension to eighty years. The Committee pointed out that under the existing practice it was sixty years, but that the Local Government Board, in its discretion, did not allow in many cases provincial authorities to have that period, but that they could do that at once now. He asked the President of the Local Government Board to give his view of the desirability of extending the period for repayment up to sixty years, whore the asset was durable. That would be a great consideration to many municipalities, and would enable them, with a modification of the by-laws in regard to dwelling houses, to reduce the rent of tenements by a few pence, which even would be a great boon. There was another recommendation by the Committee that some postponement of the repayment of the first instalment should be allowed in the case of certain works. These were small matters, and would not carry them very far. But he should be glad to have the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon them. He supported the Motion; but he dissociated himself entirely from the suggestion that the London County Council, particularly, had not done all it could under the present law. It had overcome a mountain of difficulties, having regard to the state of the law, and if the Government would assist in mitigating these difficulties by referring the small matters to which he referred to a select Committee, the debate would not have been raised in vain.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he did not feel disposed to support this Motion, because it was such an insignificant way of peddling and tinkering with what seemed to be by far the greatest national question that they could deal with. As the hon. Member who proposed the Motion travelled rather widely over the question, perhaps he might be allowed in a very few words to state what he thought was the question. He had some right to make a statement, as some years of his life had been voluntarily spent in "Slum-land," and he thought he had a knowledge equal to that of the average Member on the question. This was not one question—it was a great congeries of questions; in fact, he might say that almost every social question was directly or indirectly associated with it. The housing question proper—if indeed there were such a question as the housing question proper—bore on such questions as the drink question, the land question, the education question, the general industrial system, and the aggregation of the population. It was almost like treating the matter with irony to propose such a resolution as that of his hon. friend. To illustrate what he meant he remarked that once he visited every house in "Slum-land" in one of our large towns and became acquainted with every house in it—so well acquainted that he could measure every room with his eye as well as his measure. One of the facts which struck him most—except perhaps, the fact that after every Christian holiday a great number of women had black eyes—was that in a very large number of houses where there were three bedrooms only one was occupied; the occupants were passing their lives in what was termed a "living-room." Of course the explanation was very simple—the drink bill, the sale for rent, and the pawnbrokers' shops. The economic pith of the question surely was that the population was increasing, and the rents of the houses were increasing quicker than the rate of wages of the people inhabiting them. There were only two ways of dealing with the question—one by decreasing the population, i.e., by decreasing the birth-rate, and emigration.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon.

939
Member, but he is now opening up the general question of the Housing of the Working Classes. That would not be admissible on the question that I now leave the Chair. The only subject that can be discussed is one arising on the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the general question, and he can only do so if he can connect it with some action on the part of a Government Department. That he does not appear to me to be attempting to do. It is important that the discussion should be confined to its proper limit.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he had at the back of his mind that he was travelling beyond the limit, and he apologised. But his hon. friend made such wide expressions that he was hoping to follow in his footsteps. He should be very pleased to support a more drastic and effective measure than the present proposal, which was altogether too small and trifled with the question. He wanted some great measure to turn the people on the land and multiply the proposal of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division 500 times.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid be thought that on a question of this kind where the conditions were so complex, even merely as a matter of Government administration, it was quite natural that public attention should be directed to it; and his hon. friend the Member for Hoxton had taken the only course open to him to call attention to the matter, by framing his Motion in the form in which it was before the House. Of course the Motion might not be in the form which would be most acceptable to his hon. friend or to the Department on whose administration it appeared to reflect. There was always something exhilarating in attacking a Department, because of the animation which it produced. He should, however, like to say on behalf of the municipality which he represented that, as far as the actual administration of the Housing Acts was concerned, there were no complaints. He held in his hand one of the highest tributes to the Local Government Board which it had ever been his good fortune to come across. An official in a northern town connected
940
with housing operations informed him that he had no difficulty at all with the Local Government Board and had always found the Board quite willing to be educated in the matter of housing. That was a unique tribute; and so far from a Department which was willing to be educated by the local authorities being the object of attack, it should be the object of praise, and should be held up as a pattern to other Departments. The administration of these Acts by the Local Government Board could not be complained of for the reason that, according to the Acts, the initiative should come from the local authority; and the Acts were so framed that the onus was thrown on the local authority. If the local authority did not move itself, or move its medical officer, power was given to two Justices of the Peace, or to any twelve ratepayers, to force the medical officer to make the necessary representations. Therefore, the initial responsibility for dealing with the matter rested not with the central authority but with the local authority, or failing them with the ratepayers who elected them to the position they occupied.
A certain series of questions were sent out by the Local Government Board to various provincial authorities in connection with this matter; and he would advocate that the policy which was indicated in that series of questions might be carried a little further, perhaps in the direction indicated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camber well, with whose general line he did not altogether agree, but who on the question of the class of house to be provided laid down what he thought was a most admirable indication. In that series of questions the Local Government Board asked whether there was a want of proper accommodation for the working classes in the area of the local authority; had it led to overcrowding, and, if so, how many cases had been reported; for what classes of persons was such accommodation required; how far was the demand being met by private enterprise; and in particular, what was the number of houses for each class of such persons which were erected annually by private enterprise; and if action were to be taken under the Act, was it thought that the erection of houses for these

941
classes by the local authority would tend to discourage private enterprise, and, if so, what was the reason for this conclusion? He wished to point out the enormous bearing which that series of questions had on the solution of the problem. It indicated that the central Authority was not going to be the passive recipient of schemes which they would either criticise, remodel, or endorse; but that it recognised that in an administrative sense if it was to do its duty it must survey what was passing in provincial cities in connection with this question. The question of slums and insanitary houses was one thing, and the general question of the deficiency of housing accommodation was another. In London, which was in some respects in quite an unique position in this matter, the practice had been to take a particular slum district, composed very often of houses structurally sanitary, and under Part 1 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, or under some local Act, to demolish the houses, and imagine that that was solving the Housing Question. It was perfectly clear that by such action so far from solving the housing question they were accentuating the very difficulty and trouble from which these large cities had suffered; and what was imperative, he thought, was that the Central Department in administering the Act should not only require that adequate accommodation should be provided to replace the houses that were pulled down, but should go further and demand that that accommodation should suit the capacities, the pockets, and the other conditions of those who were dispossessed from slums which the municipalities destroyed. The fact of the matter was that those people who were turned out of these slums could not by any possibility pay the rents which were in many cases required by the municipalities, for their buildings, and he thought he might claim for Liverpool that alone amongst the municipalities of England,—to say nothing of London which of course had not attempted to deal with this question at all—Liverpool provided dwellings suitable for those who were turned out of their slum dwellings at rents which they could afford to pay, and within reasonable distance of their work.
He knew perfectly well that other municipalities in this matter were merely making, as they made sometimes in Liverpool, experiments. In Manchester—
942
and this after all was a matter of administration, because the Central Department could, if it liked, put this matter right—they had in the Angel Meadow district closed innumerable houses and left them as a standing eyesore to the whole of the city. People had been turned out into the streets, and they held indignation meetings on account of the pitiable condition in which they found themselves, and the answer of the Manchester Corporation was: "Oh, you must go to Blackley." Well, Blackley was a new model estate which the Corporation was building on the outskirts of Manchester, and these people who had been turned out of Angel Meadow were perverse enough to say that they had no means to pay the cost of getting there, and if they got there they could not pay the rent of the fine new model dwellings which the Manchester Corporation was putting up. Therefore it really came down to this urgent question, that the municipality which undertook the responsibility of abolishing a slum and turning out of the houses—to which these people were accustomed—the slum dwellers, should, when it took this responsibility, recognise it, and recognise further that its first responsibility was not to some superior class of artisan who tenanted the house at an enhanced rent, but to the very people who had been turned out, who were the legitimate objects of municipal enterprise—and doubly legitimate because the municipality which catered for these people would find no competition as regarded private enterprise. It was perfectly true that no Department could coerce local authorities in this matter. They had the previous day a most interesting debate, which involved, to a certain extent, the relations between central Departments and local authorities, or, at any rate, between the House and local authorities. He desired, for his part, to disclaim utterly any trace of that spirit which seemed occasionally to reign on the Benches where he stood, of underlying antagonism to these great municipalities, whose burdens were only known to the men who had to face them, and who, it might be, in facing such problems as they were discussing that day experimented in an ill-advised fashion, but, at any rate, were not

943
apathetic or indifferent to the responsibilities they had undertaken. Might he suggest to the central Departments represented there, both the Home Office, but more particularly the Local Government Board, that they should take a little more responsibility in the matter of the policy which was being pursued by the great provincial municipalities. These municipalities had not arrived at any clear or coherent policy on this question. They had not even decided the elementary question for what class of tenant they were going to cater; they were perfectly willing to pull down the slums.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me to be discussing the question of what is the duty of the local authorities, and how they perform it. That is not admissible on this question. The hon. Member admits that the Government cannot take any initiative on this matter, and he must confine himself, if he is discussing the action of the municipal authorities, to some alleged neglect of duty by the Government in respect of what is done by the authorities.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was leading up to this point, that of course the central Department now took this initiative when it insisted upon a certain percentage of accommodation being provided in case a slum was disturbed and the inhabitants thrown out, and he was going to suggest that they might go a little further, as indicated by Dr. Macnamara, and say not only should accommodation be provided, but the accommodation should be allocated to those who were dispossessed. In that sense they would, at any rate, force the municipality to face the question of doing something to bring them a little nearer, not to the solution of the whole problem, but to the practical solution of the slum problem, which was the real problem for the municipalities to deal with. He did not desire for a moment to travel into wider aspects of this question. He quite felt that this was a question merely of administration, though he desired to urge the central Department to exercise a guiding spirit in regard to the large municipalities all over the country. It was really because he recognised on this question, while everybody wished
944
something to be done, each municipality was doing something different. No coherent policy had yet been achieved and he might say that millions were being wasted in experiments which gave no practical result, but which if superintended and collated by the chiefs in London might ultimately be fruitful in building up some saner and wiser policy.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the hon. Member for Clitheroe had asked him to draw attention to the case of Darwen. The local authorities, there it appeared, had entered into a building scheme; they had certain by-laws and desired to apply those by-laws to the buildings now in progress and those proposed to be erected, but the Local Government Board had insisted upon their own by-laws being applied, with the result that the local authority had had to put the rent up by a shilling a week more than they would otherwise have charged, and a charge had consequently to be made upon the rates. There was no dispute as to the responsibility resting with the local authorities in this matter, but what they complained of was that the Local Government Board placed unnecessary restrictions and restraints in the way. An instance of that occurred in his own constituency where overcrowding had become very serious. There building had been delayed for a number of years owing to a conflict between the local authority and the Local Government Board. At Wellington, at this moment, a similar conflict was going on. There owing to the influx of population, owing to new works being started in the neighbourhood, a building scheme had been entered into, but it was discovered that the rent which would have to be charged was far beyond that which could be charged for houses erected by private enterprise, and the local authority were now asking the central authority to vary the conditions in order that they might charge a rent such as these people could afford to pay. He thought the Local Government Board should give some attention to these matters. In Scotland, loans had to be repaid in from thirty to thirty-four years, but for loans applicable to England the period of repayment might

945
be extended to sixty years. In Scotland, owing to loans for housing having to be repaid in thirty or thirty-four years, the authorities were placed under a serious disability, because it necessitated the rents being 1s. 6d. or 2s. per week higher than would be the case if a forty-five or fifty years limit was allowed. Speaking generally, he hoped the Local Government Board would not relax its regulations concerning the quality of the houses to be built; otherwise slums would simply be recreated. No greater mistake could be made than to pull down houses and build dwellings which in fifteen or twenty years would be as bad as those they had displaced. The suggestion of the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division that the Local Government Board should insist on local authorities building houses only for slum dwellers for whom private enterprise could not provide ought not to be followed. Instead of playing the part of scavenger to the private housebuikler, and taking charge of the refuse, out of whom they could not make a profit, the Local Government Board should insist on the local authorities building houses which would cater for the better class of artisans. By that means housing vacancies would be created right down to the lowest slums, and the competition of the municipality would tend to reduce rents all round.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYregretted that this matter could not be discussed as a whole. The housing question was the basis of all social improvements, and all Members were anxious that legislation and the action of the Local Government Board and the Home Office should tend in the direction of promoting the well-being of the homes of the people. The question of loans and the action of the Local Government Board in relation thereto was of considerable importance. The subject was largely affected by cost, and to go thoroughly into the housing question would require millions of money in London alone. The proposal of the hon. Member for North Camber well that the repayment of loans should be greatly extended, and that no repayments should be made for the first few years, would not promote the real object they had in view. It seemed as though they were most anxious to house the people better, but to throw the burden on somebody
946
else. He hoped the Local Government Board would not give way in that direction; it would tend not only to increase the rates, but to increase them out of all proportion to the benefit secured. This was not in any way a party question, and many Members felt that to go on increasing the powers of the Local Government Board, and of municipalities, really retarded the movement by discouraging private enterprise, by which he believed this work should largely be done. He hoped some comprehensive measure would be brought forward, which while promoting in every way the provision of improved and sanitary homes, would not saddle the burden on posterity, but deal with the question in an honest and straightforward manner.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid there was no proposition which on the surface appeared more natural, and therefore was more popular, than that they should call on the Local Government Board or the Home Office to introduce legislation by which in all cases the repayment of loans for housing purposes should be spread over a longer period. Looking at the question strictly from the point of view of what a Government Department might be called upon to do, he thought these questions should be looked at from a local rather than a general point of view. So far as the Metropolis, and cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh were concerned, there could be no objection to extending the period of repayment, because the tendency was for land in those places to increase in value. But that proposition could not be laid down for the country at large. The position in, say, a mining district was totally different. There the houses would be occupied by people dependent on an uncertain industry, and if a loan were granted for sixty or eighty years, and the principal industry became impaired, the district might be reduced to a position of almost permanent bank ruptcy, being saddled with a debt it was unable to repay. He would not object to there being vested in the Local Government Board or the Home Office a discretionary power to raise the outside limit, but he hoped it would

947
never be understood by the Department concerned that it was to relax that extreme vigilance which he believed was of the utmost importance to the ratepayers both of the present and of the future. They might be piling up a debt upon posterity, affecting them more as householders than ratepayers, heavier than any benefit which might accrue from the houses to be erected.
He wished to touch upon one other point which he thought was germane to this Vote. The hon. Member for North Camber well, and the hon. Member who introduced the Motion to the House, had spoken of very great evils which existed owing to there being a divided jurisdiction between the offices of the two right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. He thought one of the first things which ought to be done was to bring into the House some measure for the consolidation of the law upon this subject. One of the greatest difficulties in the small urban communities arose owing to the immense confusion of the law, and however anxious they might be to put themselves into communication with the Local Government Board, they found themselves beaten by the extreme complexity of the laws they had to administer. There was no way of dealing with the housing of the working classes until the present law was simplified. Taking the question as a whole, he thought the consolidation and simplification of the existing law was almost as important as any amendment of the law. They had been promised an alteration of the rule under which the two Departments dealing with this question introduced legislation—he was alluding to the proposal in regard to Consolidation Bills. He did not see how they were to get what they wanted in regard to the housing of the working classes, unless some comparatively simple legislative enactment were carried which he who ran might read, instead of clerks, surveyors, and medical officer's having to find their way through dozens of Acts of Parliament. He hoped that the Cabinet Ministers concerned would do all they could to induce the Government to proceed with the Standing Order which was promised last year, and which appeared to have been dropped because one hon.
948
Member opposite chose to state that he objected to Consolidation Orders, although that hon. Member, he believed, stood absolutely by himself upon the question.
SIR. J. DICKSON-POYNDEKthought the House was indebted to his hon. friend for having brought this question forward. Although the Amendment was rather formidable, he was sure his hon. friend would be the first to admit that he did not wish to bring any serious charge against the two Departments of the service. Judging from the speeches which had been made, no quarter of the House appeared to entertain any great feeling of antagonism to either of the Departments concerned. As a Member of the County Council who had been in touch with this question for some years past, he wished to say that every member of the London County Council Committee fully recognised the manner in which both Departments and both Ministers had taken up this question, and the sympathy and generosity with which they had treated the Council with regard to housing. This Amendment confined the discussion to very narrow limits, and they could not deal with the wider questions which were connected with this subject. They could only deal with the administration of the Acts themselves, and the power the Ministers had over local authorities. The duty of the local authority had been divided into two branches; first, the administration under the Acts which gave power to purchase land, and secondly that part which dealt with the clearance of slum areas. He did not think anything now stood in the way of local authorities purchasing land and building upon those sites, but it was rather with regard to the latter branch of the subject that the asked for the attention of the Home Secretary. During the last twenty-seven years there had been under the old Metropolitan Board of Works and the London County Council no less than thirty-four slum areas cleared from London, and they had cost no less than £3,000,000, of which some £2,200,000 was a dead loss to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He thought the time had arrived when the clearance of these areas should be dealt with by some other

949
means than those at present in practice; and some less extravagant and expensive system should be devised by which London could be cleared of slum areas without this immense imposition of burdens upon the ratepayers. He asked his right hon. friend to use his discretion under the Act in the future with regard to Part 1 schemes, by which he could direct or advise the local authority after clearing an area to sell it at its commercial value, and purchase other land on the outskirts of London for sites to accommodate the people who had been displaced.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the action of local authorities.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he was only showing the immense charge put upon the rates with a view to asking the Home Secretary whether in future he could not guide local authorities rather in the direction of selling the central areas and utilising the money to purchase larger areas outside. Undoubtedly it would be very difficult to obtain communication with the outskirts, but every year Bills were being passed for the construction of underground railways, and in a very short time it was to be hoped, as the result of the Commission now sitting, there would be adequate communication with the outskirts to convey people from the centre to the outside of London at a small cost and without undue delay.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is discussing a much wider question than the one raised by this Motion. The question is whether the administration of the Housing Acts by the Departments concerned is unsatisfactory and defective.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERasked the Home Secretary to devise some mode by which they would be able to clearly define in the future what was sanitary and insanitary property. He knew it was a very delicate question for a Minister in any way to advise those gentlemen who discharged judicial duties. But there was no doubt a great lack of
950
uniformity, due to different tribunals dealing with this question of the closing of insanitary houses.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! It is obvious that this cannot be a question of the administrative duties of the two Departments.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he was afraid the Motion was so very prescribed that it left him very little to say. He hoped that later on when the question of the salary of the Minister came up he should have an opportunity of bringing this subject before the House. He asked the President of the Local Government Board to look into another question. Under the present arrangement, when an area was cleared it was necessary for another site to be appropriated by the Borough Council to house number of people. That appropriation, he believed, came under the individual consent of the President of the Local Government Board if it was taken separately from the scheme. But the Local Government Board insisted at present on taking it altogether, and this necessitated coming to the House for a Provisional Order. If this was insisted on by the President of the Local Government Board, there would be a delay of six or eight months, and building would be stopped during that period. Possibly this had not come under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and if he would give it his favourable consideration he was sure that it would be of the greatest value to the Borough of St. Pancras.
MR. WALTER LONG: In regard to the point raised by my hon. friend the Member for the Chippenham Division, I have no doubt that I shall be able to find a way to overcome the difficulty to which he has referred. With reference to the general debate, I am not surprised that many speakers on both sides of the House have sought to apologise for the hon. Member for Hoxton, and the form of apology is that the hon. Member's Resolution does not really mean what it professes to mean. One of my hon. friends went further in the excess of his zeal, and sought to show that the hon. Member for Hoxton did not mean what he said. My hon. friend goes a little too far when he give him so much protection, because

951
the Resolution is a perfectly definite one. It is that the Housing Acts have failed because of maladministration on the part of the Local Government Board, though no evidence has been produced in support of the charge. Among the statements my hon. friend made was that the Local Government Board have not shown initiative. He went on to say that there was nobody in the Local Government Board charged with the sole care of the Housing Acts. Those were the grounds on which he rested his statement that the Local Government Board had failed in its administration of the Housing Acts, and he said it was on account of these circumstances that at all events some of the present difficulties were due. I do not wonder that hon. Members found it difficult to continue the debate within the rules of order. It is not only because the rules of order have dogged their footsteps that they found this difficulty; it is because they have not got the evidence necessary in order to prove the charge stated in the Resolution. I do not hesitate to say that the debate has been of a general character. We have heard a great deal about initiative on the part of Government Departments, and about the necessity of some means being found to meet some particular difficulty. When I hear these statements I rub my eyes and wonder whether I am asleep at this period of Parliamentary history. What has been the cry of Parliament ever since I have been here? What has been one of the main propositions on which hon. Members have sought to enter Parliament? Has it been for increased centralisation on the part of Government Departments? Has not the tendency for legislation been more and more to throw into the hands of Government Departments less and less work, and to give more and more power to the local authorities? But if the local authorities are to be clothed with mere power, they must be trusted to exercise initiative of their own, or decentralisation becomes a farce. Initiative must come from the locality which is familiar with the facts and difficulties in a way that no Government Department can be. The local authority, moreover, is spending the money of its own ratepayers, and not the money of the nation; I very much doubt whether suggestions that a Government Department should exercise parental
952
supervision in this matter are likely to-find favour even with the small municipalities, and I am certain they would be rejected with contempt by the larger. It is all very well to talk of a central department exercising initiative. How is it to be done? My hon. friend says the Local Government Board have been apathetic, and have not taken the trouble to administer the Acts with vigour. What evidence has he brought in support of the charge? If, when he tells us that we have nobody at the Local Government Board charged with the sole control of the Housing Acts, he means that we have no one who has nothing else to do but to look after the housing problem, he is perfectly right, and I can assure him that he would find he was profoundly mistaken if he sought to break up the work of the Department in that ridiculous way.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I advocated that there should be an Intelligence Department, which would be able to gather information from all parts of the country, and place it at the service of local authorities.
MR. WALTER LONG: My hon. friend says that he wants an Intelligence Department. What proof does he advance that there is not an Intelligence Department now? He was answered by the speech of the hon. Member for Camber, well, who has referred to the circulars issued to local authorities asking for specific answers to specific questions. How does he think those circulars could have been drawn up and issued if the Local Government Department were so lacking in intelligence as he holds it to be? There is a branch of the Department, with a highly competent assistant secretary at its head, which is charged, among other duties, with the supervision of all housing work; and in character and ability the officials of that branch are deserving of all commendation. I was glad to hear the remark that fell from the hon. Member for Camberwell in regard to the enthusiasm of the officials of the Local Government Board and of the Home Office. An hon. Member has brought forward a case at Darwen which is an admirable illustration of the

953
sort of complaint that is made against the Local Government Board in this matter. It is said that in that case the Department refused to allow the local authority to make its own by-laws, and imposed upon it the by-laws of the Local Government Board. The fact is that the local authority had their own code of by-laws, drawn by themselves and approved by the Local Government Board. But when they came to undertake a housing scheme the local authority proposed to disregard their own by-laws, two of which were very important. That means that if the Local Government Board had not told them that they must obey the law so long as the law is what it is, the local authority could have continued to impose their by-laws on private persons engaged in building in the locality, while claiming exemption for themselves. If they think the bylaws are unsound or unsatisfactory, let them ask that a new code of by-laws shall be substituted, but as long as the by-laws are in force, surely it is rather strong to accuse the Department of red tape, because they say that the local authority must obey the law.
MR. SHACKLETON: They did not want to make by-laws for their own special benefit. I was a Member of the Corporation at the time, and the only question was whether the by-laws applied to ordinary buildings should be applied to the Corporation buildings.
MR. WALTER LONG: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Although he was a member of the Corporation at the time, there is often considerable misunderstanding as to what precisely occurs on these occasions. I believe it is exactly the same with many other cases which are brought up in this form, and which upon investigation turn out to be as I have described in this case. The Local Government Board have no by-laws, and they have no power to impose any on local authorities. Before by-laws can be put in force they must be adopted by the local authorities. My hon. friend, the Member for Hoxton, referred to this question. He said that many of the by-laws were of an excessive character, and that they imposed great
954
restrictions. He blamed the Local Government Board for it. Will the House believe it? Hardly ever is a set of by-laws submitted by a local authority to the Local Government Board for confirmation without it being necessary to call attention to the fact that many of them are of a questionable character, and may operate severely on the locality and be restrictive of local enterprise.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Camberwell who said he hoped we should adopt one of the recommendations of the Committee of which he was a member, to take care that buildings are not of a pretentious character; that they are suited to the purses of those who provide them, and of those who are to live in them. That has been the object of the Department ever since it has been responsible for the Acts. We are constantly endeavouring to cut down the amount which the local authorities are seeking to spend under this head, and to curtail unnecessary extravagance. But I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would be one of the first to advise us not to weaken in the smallest degree those by-laws which are concerned either with sanitary work or what I call the social comfort of the people who are to live in the houses. We have never proposed to impose regulations which would involve work of a merely ornamental character or to gratify an idle fancy. It is perfectly true that we have insisted on a certain cubic space per inhabitant. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would desire that model buildings put up at the public expense should be of such a character as to make it impossible for women and children to live healthy lives in them and get sufficient fresh air. I do not think that he would desire that the sanitary arrangements should be other than satisfactory and of a modern character. These are the kind of requirements that the Local Government Board make upon the local authorities. It is perfectly true that we have more than once insisted that in these small dwellings there shall be properly ventilated cupboards, where food can be kept shut up out of the way when not in use. Will anybody pretend that

955
these are unreasonable requirements to make on the local authorities? We are entirely at one with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that, as far as possible, these buildings should be of the most economical character. It should never be forgotten by those who have to erect them that these buildings are erected at the public expense, and are intended for people to live in who want solid and sanitary rather than ornamental buildings. The hon. Member for Hoxton said there had been apathy in the Department in connection with this housing question, but he did not support his contention with any evidence. I only speak of the time for which I have been responsible, but so far as I know—and I believe there has been no change in this respect—everything that it is possible for us to do has been done within the last three or four years to assist the local authorities in their difficult and responsible duties. I do not think that any charge of negligence can be fairly brought against us.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: What about information?
MR. WALTER LONG: What does my hon. friend want? He tells us that it is matter of common knowledge that no explanation has been given as to the character of all that has been done by the local authorities, and as to the loans that they have incurred; but so far as I know there is no information which we have not given. It is not information in regard to the difficulties connected with housing that the hon. Gentleman wants. He wants, as we all do, information as to the way in which those difficulties ought to be removed. The hon. Member for Camberwell asked some questions as to the Report of the Committee on Housing and on the subject of area and loans. In regard to area the recommendation of the Committee has been the policy of our Department, which has always been willing to deal with the area in the manner suggested in the Report. In regard to loans, as the law stands sixty years is the maximum period, and the Department have interpreted it as meaning sixty years for the most durable portions of the work. It will be my duty to submit proposals to Parliament on this subject in a Bill which will be introduced in a short time, and I must
956
reserve what I have to say on it until that opportunity arises. While I am most anxious to remove any practical difficulty, either in connection with loans or any other part of the administration of the law with regard to housing, it seems to me that the Department in its proposals must have regard to the views of those who believe that there is a necessity for municipal economy, as well as for the opinions of those who believe that there is a demand for a greater opportunity to spend money. I cannot admit on behalf of the Department that there is any justification for the charge contained in the hon. Member for Hoxton's Amendment. Everything the Department could do within the law they have done; and I have asked hon. Members times without number to bring details before me so that no effort should be spared on the part of the Department and myself to help them. It is therefore an unfair charge to bring forward, and it ought not to be made unless there is much stronger evidence to support it. After all, it is not a charge against the Government. Governments come and go, but a charge of this kind is against the public officials, who are men of the highest ability, of the utmost devotion to duty, and who are constantly engaged in the examination of these questions. I venture to say that so far from condemning them we ought to be grateful to them for the prudent and careful manner in which they deal with this grave and difficult question.
Question put, and agreed to.
Original Question again proposed.

THE TRUCK ACTS.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he wished very briefly to call attention to a matter which concerned the administration of the Truck Acts by the Home Office, but especially to an attempt which was being made in the North-west of Scotland to compel the workmen of a certain company to sign themselves out of the provisions of these Acts. At Ballachulish, in Argyllshire, there was a quarry employing between 300 and 400 men. The custom had been for the manager and workmen to combine jointly in the appointment of a medical man, whose salary was deducted from the wages of the men. Last year a dispute

957
arose between the manager and the doctor who was given notice of dismissal. The workmen protested against their medical officer being dismissed without their sanction or authority, and refused to allow the company to make deductions from their wages in order to pay the doctor's salary. They now contributed to a voluntary fund, and had re-engaged the same medical man to attend upon them and their families. He might be allowed to say that there was an action at law now pending against the doctor who, in his agreement with the company, had promised not to set up practice in the neighourhood. The workmen said that that clause in the agreement was put in without their knowledge or consent. The workmen were only allowed to continue in employment if they signed an agreement permitting the salary of the medical officer to be deducted from their wages. They objected to do this, and because they objected they were locked out, and had been out since the end of December. It was well enough known that under the provisions of the Truck Act any agreement enabling an employer to make deductions from his workmen's wages might be entered into voluntarily, but if the employer made such an arrangement a condition of employment it became a violation of the Truck Act. The mines inspector for the West of Scotland inquired into this case, but so far as he was aware no proceedings had yet been instituted. It might be said that the letter of the Act had not been violated, inasmuch as the men were not in employment. The point to which he wanted to direct attention was that the workmen could only find employment on condition that they signed the agreement to which he referred. If that were not making the agreement a condition of employment then he did not know the meaning of the words. There was no dispute about wages, hours of work, or anything else. The only difficulty was that the workmen refused to sign the agreement. It seemed to him that two Departments were concerned in this mutter. First of all the Home Office, and next the Board of Trade. The Home Secretary should make it clear that this attempt to compel workmen to sign an agreement as a condition of employment was
958
illegal, and, if the right hon. Gentleman did that, he did not think it would be persisted in. Then the Board of Trade might send down an investigator to inquire into and report on all the circumstances of the dispute. It looked at present as if the dispute would degenerate into a struggle similar to that at the Penrhyn Quarries. One dispute of that kind was enough to be proceeding at once; and it was with the view to preventing another that he brought these facts to the notice of the House and the Government, and asked the Government to take such action as their powers might permit, in order to prevent the infraction, if not of the strict letter, at all events of the spirit of the Truck Act. The men claimed the protection of the Truck Act, and said that they should not be obliged to sign the agreement, but that if a deduction were made in their wages they could sue for its recovery. They did not, however, desire to resume work under false pretences, and be compelled to sign what they believed to be an illegal agreement. He submitted it was within the power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Board of Trade to take such steps as would prevent the dispute from degenerating into a long struggle. He begged to move.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move an Amendment, one Amendment having been negatived.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)said he had to confess that this matter was not present to his mind at the moment. It was a question which would involve a considerable amount of care and consideration; especially as he gathered from the hon. Gentleman that an action at law was pending. But he could promise that very careful consideration would be given to it, not only by himself, but also by his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade; he could assure the hon. Gentleman that no time would be lost by him in personally looking into the matter. He would probably be prepared in a few days to inform the hon. Gentleman if he

959
asked a Question on the subject, what action it was proposed to take.

CIVIL SERVICE UPPER DIVISION.
MR. D. A. THOMASsaid he desired to direct the attention of the Government to the Amendment which stood in his name. He wished the Secretary to the Treasury to understand that in bringing the matter forward he was not acting in any hostile spirit. It had been repeatedly recommended by Royal Commissions that the salaries of the upper division of officials in the Civil Service should be made uniform; and, although he should like to see that done, he only asked an assurance that the salaries of the upper division officials in two very important Departments, the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade, should be assimilated as far as possible to the recommendations of the Commissions. This was a matter which not only affected individuals, but also affected efficiency in perhaps the two most important Departments of the State. He should like to trace the development of the upper division of the Civil Service. Fifty years ago the Civil Service was in a very different position to what it was now. Then, there was no division between the intellectual work and the clerical routine work, and men of high qualifications were not attracted to the Service. In 1854 Sir Charles Trevelyan and Sir Stafford Northcote were appointed to report on its condition, and they said—
"Admission into the Civil Service is indeed eagerly sought for, but it is for the unambitious and the indolent and incapable that it is chiefly desired. Those whose abilities do not warrant an expectation that they will succeed in the open professions where they must encounter the competition of their contemporaries, and those whom indolence of temperament or physical infirmities unfit for active exertions, are placed in the Civil Service, where they may obtain an honourable livelihood with little labour and with no risk."
To-day the Civil Service was one of the finest in the world. The men in it were largely drawn from public schools and universities, and from an educational point of view compared favourably with men in other avocations, and certainly with the average member of
960
the so-called learned professions. The Commissioners recommended in 1854 (1) The separation of intellectual and mechanical labour, and (2) The selection of clerks by open competition. These two principles had ever since been regarded as essential, and were the foundation on which subsequent Royal Commissions reported. In 1835 the Civil Service Commission was established to examine candidates; and later, by Order of Council, almost unrestricted competitive examination was made the door of entry into the Civil Service. In 1874 the Playfair Commission was appointed to consider the organisation of the Civil Service, and that Commission reaffirmed the recommendations of Sir George Trevelyan and Sir Stafford Northcote, and recommended a uniform scale of pay throughout the service. These are the words—
"The rate of remuneration to be paid in the Higher Division should be such as would attract men of a liberal education, who would otherwise go into the open professions. These rates of pay should be uniform throughout the service."
In 1886, a very strong Royal Commission was appointed, known as the Ridley Commission, which again reaffirmed the recommendations of the Playfair Commission, and used these words—
"We think it an object of the most serious importance that men of the same standard of liberal education as those who now adopt the open professions, should be attracted into the public service and trained there for selection for the highest permanent posts."
It was this scale he asked the Treasury now to adopt in these two Departments. He did not think it had been adopted altogether in the War Office and the Admiralty, but it had been adopted in the Scotch Office and the Irish Office, and he maintained that the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade were infinitely more important than either the Scotch or Irish Offices, in which this scale had been adopted. He would like to know why the recommendation had not been carried out. He had endeavoured to find that out and had asked the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman this question—
"To state the grounds on which any distinctions are drawn between the higher officials of the various Departments having regard to the fact that they are all recruited by the same examination and for the same class of work."

961
The Postmaster-General, who then occupied the position of the hon. Gentleman, in reply referred him to Parliamentary Paper 575 of 1894 for a full account of the action taken on the Report of the Royal Commission, and of the reasons for it, and stated that no change was contemplated at the present time. Upon referring to that Paper he found this—
"The Treasury does not contemplate absolute uniformity of scale, but in cases where Departments have made very large reductions of numbers, has felt justified in improving the scale of salary so as to approximate more closely to the figures recommended by the Royal Commission."
On the principle, he supposed, of less work and more pay. In the previous year, or the year before that, he put a question on this subject to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board who replied—
"The examination for the clerks of the upper division of the Local Government Board is the same as that for clerks of the same division in the offices of the Secretaries of State, with the exception of the Foreign Office, and so far as I am aware the class of work performed by the clerks in these several offices is similar in character. Some reduction in the number of the upper division clerks in the Local Government Board was made between 1884 and 1897, but in that year the large growth in the work rendered it essential that a considerable increase should be made in the staff of the office, including the upper division."
But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the present Postmaster-General, subsequently said that
"All clerks of the upper division are recruited by examinations on the same subjects. Vacancies in the offices of the Secretaries of State are filled by the most successful candidates, or by the transfer from other Departments of officers who have shown exceptional merit. In the opinion of the Treasury the work in the offices of the Secretaries of State, taken as a whole, requires higher qualifications than does that of other public departments."
So that the House would see that the Financial Secretary of that day held an exactly contrary opinion. He thought the distinctions drawn between the offices of the Secretaries of State and the other big Departments was largely historical and not real; largely a matter of tradition rather than of fact. In his opinion it was opposed both to the interests of the State, and the interest of the Departments that there should be this distinction drawn in the scale of the salaries paid.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that this question was raised at considerable length before the Reorganisation Committee of the Local Government Board, of which he was a Member, and that was his only excuse for intervening. At the time it was raised it came as a surprise to him, and he could never understand why an upper division clerk in the Local Government Board, or the Board of Trade, was pecuniarily in a worse position than the same class of clerk in the offices of a Secretary of State. The point he desired to force on the Secretary to the Treasury, independent of those which had been emphasised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, was that this system worked prejudicially in the case of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. There was a constant state of transfer going on. Clerks who had learnt their business in those offices, when they found they could get better pay in the offices of a Secretary of State naturally used all the influence in their power to get transferred; the result was the great offices of State got the best men, who had learned their work in other Departments, whilst the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade had to bring in men who had to be taught their business, which was most prejudicial to those Departments.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,)said he cordially joined in the tribute that had been paid by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to the Civil Service. Those who had had anything to do with the civil administration could not but admire the zeal, ability, and courtesy which those gentlemen brought to the administration of their Departments. The hon. Gentleman did not defend his Motion at all on any deterioration of the Civil Service, or the falling off of the high standard of excellence for which the country had so long been accustomed to look. The high testimony which had been given by the hon. Gentleman was amply borne out by the statistics upon this subject, which showed that it was very rarely that any one obtained a position in the upper division of the Civil Service who had not at least one first class to his credit at his university. He frankly admitted that if the hon. Gentleman looked

963
for anomalies, both in the pay and the prizes of the Civil Service, he would find them. The British Constitution was full of anomalies, and it would be strange indeed if those who were responsible for its administration had not some taint of the disease. He admitted that if they took the pay-sheets of the upper division of the Civil Service and looked through the pay and prizes offered to candidates that came into our big Departments, of which there were nineteen, it would be found that the pay and the prizes varied in an extraordinary degree. Some inequalities existed that it would be very difficult to give a reason for. There were nineteen big offices, in five of which, namely, the Treasury, the Colonial Office, the Home Office, the Scotch Office, and the Irish Office, the commencing salary was £200; in the other fourteen it was £150. What the hon. Gentleman now sought to do was to raise the initial salary of the juniors entering the upper division of the Civil Service from £150 to £200. But though the hon. Member had limited his Motion to the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade, if he considered his arguments he would find that the case could not rest there; the hon. Gentleman said that he defied any one to prove that the work done in those two offices was of an inferior order to that done in the Colonial and Home Offices; but it would be equally difficult to prove that the work done was of a superior order to that done in the Admiralty and the War Office. The Treasury had already been approached by the clerks in the War Office, and they had complained that they were not given the same high salaries as were given in the Colonial Office. He thought the work of the Treasury was of a very high order, and he did not think anybody in that office was over-paid; but he could not say, nor could anyone else, that all the work done at the five great offices of State where higher salaries were paid was of a higher order than the work done at the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade. The hon. Member asked "Why not adopt a scheme of uniform pay?" The reason was pretty obvious. There was not the slightest ground for saying we did not get a good article for the price we paid. Then there was the Treasury argument of the cost. To pay 200 junior officials
964
at the rate of from £150 to £200 a year would mean an additional expenditure of £10,000 per annum. Nor would it stop there. If the higher scale were adopted in these offices a formidable request for similar treatment would at once be made by first-class offices, which were somewhat analogous, such as the British Museum, and, adding other incidental expenses, an increase of £30,000 a year would probably have to be faced. That was certainly a matter for reflection, seeing that up to the present the country had obtained admirable service for the money now paid.
It was true that the Ridley Commission, on whose report the hon. Member had founded his argument, recommended a certain scale of salaries, but (in paragraphs 52 and 56) it also laid great stress on the fact that before that increased scale was adopted a large reduction ought to take place in the upper division of the Civil Service. The attitude then taken up by the Treasury was that, while not altogether averse to introducing for the junior officials the scale of the Ridley Commission, at all events in the largest Departments, they must insist on the upper division being largely cut down before they did so. Between 21st March 1890 and 18th December, 1893, in six of the largest Government Departments there were 112 vacancies in the upper division, of which the Departments themselves, in concert with the Treasury, said it was not necessary to fill up ninety-seven. That showed that the pressure brought to bear by the Ridley Commission, supported by the Treasury, had been instrumental in saving a great deal of money without sacrificing anything in the way of efficiency. He desired to take up the same attitude on the present occasion. While not thinking it necessary to apply one uniform standard to all the large offices, he did not take up a stubborn attitude of opposition to the extension of the system to some of the larger offices. Each office must be treated on its own merits and make out its own case, but the Treasury would naturally expect it to show that it had effected as much economy as it could reasonably be expected to do. As to the proposal to adopt the scale for the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, he would

965
remind his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone that in 1897 he was a consenting party to keep the initial salary of the second class at £150.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that on a Committee such as that to which the hon. Member referred there had to be a good deal of give and take on both sides, and most members had to consent to things which they did not think strictly fair in order to arrive at a general agreement.
MR. HAYES FISHERfully accepted the hon. Gentleman's explanation, perhaps he did not agree with that particular part of the Report. It was impossible not to recognise the ever-increasing value of the work done by the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, and he hoped hon. Members would be satisfied with the statement that the Government had promised to appoint a Committee to inquire into the position and the duties of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, and to report whether any, and if so, what, alterations should be made in the constitution and status of those offices. It was impossible for the Government to accept a mandatory Motion to raise the initial salaries of the second class until this Committee had made its inquiry and issued its report. Speaking generally he might say that the Government would at any time be willing to consider the request of any of the big offices, on its own merits, for the application of the Ridley scale to the second class, but they would also insist that the Department should be willing to adopt in spirit and in substance the main recommendations of the Ridley Commission, so that for expenditure on the one side there would be reasonable economy on the other.

SCOTTISH FISHERIES.
MR. WEIRcalled attention to the inadequate policing of the seas around the coasts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to the serious losses sustained by the line fishermen through the depredations by illegal trawling. He was not opposed to trawling, there was plenty of room in the sea for both line fishermen and trawlers; but he did object to trawlers
966
fishing within the three-mile limit prescribed by Parliament, and his complaint was of the lack of energy on the part of the Government in stopping illegal trawling. The cruisers at the disposal of the Scottish Fisheries Board were quite insufficient for the work. They were antiquated boats, with insufficient speed, whereas the trawlers could run at fourteen or fifteen knots. The Scottish Office would probably say that they had no funds at their disposal with which to provide further cruisers. But the Secretary for Scotland was a Member of the Cabinet, and it was his duty to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and continue to go until he got the money he required. He was afraid the Secretary for Scotland had too much of the modesty which characterised his countrymen. If only they could have the Colonial Secretary as Secretary for Scotland for three or four months! The right hon. Gentleman managed to get millions out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for all sorts of purposes, but the poor fishermen round the coasts were allowed to starve because the Government would not put a stop to this illegal trawling. There were a large number of cruisers and torpedo boats at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Devonport, and why not let some of them patrol around the coast of Scotland? The Admiralty said those vessels were merely for fighting purposes, but what magnificent exercise it would be for the men to cruise in Scottish waters for the protection of the fishing grounds. He could not understand why the Government did not realise the importance of keeping the line fishermen in the fishing villages, instead of allowing them to be driven off to the large towns and cities. One of their finest national assets was the large body of Scottish fishermen. In the event of naval war, the Government would regret the loss of these men. There was plenty of room both for line fishermen and trawlers, but the trawlers ought to keep outside the three-mile limit. The Government took no steps to negotiate for the exclusion of foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth. The Scottish Office should endeavour to arrange for the exclusion of foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth. If

967
British trawlers registered under the Swedish or Norwegian flag, they were enabled as foreign trawlers to obtain access to the Moray Firth, and thus devastate the line fishing industry. He thought the Foreign Office ought to move in this matter, because the line fishermen were gradually being starved out, and the young men were being driven into the slums of large cities. The Scottish Office were much to blame for not obtaining additional and better cruisers for police purposes in order to put down these robbers of the sea.
MR GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member had described the trawlers as villains and robbers, but he had not produced a single fact or argument to show in what way they interfered with the line fishermen.
MR. WEIRsaid what he stated was that there was plenty of room for both, but let the trawler keep outside the three-mile limit.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It was said that trawling interfered with the spat of the fish, but it had been shown that all the spawn did not lie upon the ground, but floated in the sea, and consequently trawling could not produce any effect upon it. No amount of trawling within the three-mile limit could interfere with the harvest of the line fishermen. If the line fisherman was not so prosperous, it might possibly be because he was not so industrious, and had not kept pace, as the trawler had, with the suggestions of modern science, and the requirements of modern fishing. The line fishermen might be using the old gear instead of the new. It was a cruel thing for the hon. Gentleman to make this violent attack, in which he used very strong words with regard to almost deserving class of men. He maintained that trawlers were comparatively few in number. The ground they trawled over was very large, and the same trawler could not scrape over more than a certain amount of ground. The hon. Member had spoken of trawling at fourteen miles an hour, but he believed that that was absolutely impossible, for the rate could scarcely ever exceed two or two and a half miles per hour.
MR. WEIR: I said he could get away from a cruiser at fourteen knots an hour.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESdoubted whether any trawler could achieve fourteen or fifteen knots per hour. He based his remonstrance upon the fact that the hon. Member had absolutely failed to show, and he defied him to show, that the trawler did any harm whatever to the line fishermen. There was another argument. The needs of this country with regard to fish were increasing year by year. Fish was an admirable and cheap article of diet, and the greater part of it was caught, and must be caught, by the trawler. Line fishermen were perfectly incapable of supplying the wants of this country, and most of the flat fish was caught by trawlers. If the large trawler did any mischief so did the small trawler, and the hon. Member had failed to show what mischief the trawler did. He thought it was rather cruel to make an attack upon the trawlers, who as sailors were some of the best men they could find, line fishermen were not to be compared with them. He always very much regretted to hear the annual attack which the hon. Member made upon the trawlers.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he did not join in any attack on the trawlers. There must, he thought, be some good reason for the Government enforcing the prohibition on trawling in the Moray Firth; but they wanted to know why that prohibition had not been rendered effective. If the trawlers in the Moray Firth were prohibited from landing their catch at English ports, as they were prevented landing them at Scotch ports, the prohibition would be effective. As to the damage done by trawling, he thought there could be no doubt that in narrow waters there was a risk that the trawlers might fish them out. In some parts of the Moray Firth he believed that had been done by having a great amount of netting going on in the narrow water, and that he believed to be the justification for the action of the Government.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the hon. Member suggest that the trawler will fish all the fish out of the sea in the narrow waters?
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he suggested that trawling would unduly

969
reduce the stock of fish and almost fish the sea out. Everybody except the hon. Member opposite would give the Government credit for having some reason for putting a prohibition upon the Moray Firth. He should like to see the adoption of the prohibition which was put on by the Attorney-General many years ago. He thought a good purpose would be served if they could prohibit the catch being landed at English ports.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the position taken on this question by the hon. Member for King's Lynn appeared to him to be peculiar. The hon. Member was evidently one of those who thought that the time was coming when all mankind would be sustained on a small tabloid, and when it would not be necessary for people to maintain themselves by the fish of the sea or the animals of the earth. There could be no question as to the mischief which was being done by trawlers on the north coast of Scotland. In the waters off the coasts of the islands which he represented they were worse than anywhere else. Nearly the whole of the men on board the trawlers were foreigners. There was hardly a British sailor amongst the number. They broke the law, if they possibly could, every day they went out. It was the companies who sent them out and who bribed the men to break the law that they wanted to get at. The Government had helped the Irish fishermen, and what was wanted now was that they should protect the Scotch fishermen against the depredations of the trawlers. When a trawler was convicted he might be fined £70 or £100. If he went to jail he was well rewarded when he came out by the company who employed him. If it was a question of pheasant poaching he had no doubt the sympathies of the hon. Member for King's Lynn would be in the other direction.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Not at all. My sympathies are always with the poacher.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that after that statement he could well believe the hon. Member's sympathies were with the trawlers. He himself had some sympathy with the poacher who went out to take a few pheasants or partridges, or a deer. He did no harm to anybody.
970
But the trawlers destroyed food. Supposing they did not interfere with the spat or spawn, at any rate they did countless damage by destroying the young fish, which were thrown overboard to pollute and poison the sea. The sea was not a reservoir from which innumerable quatities of fish could be brought up. Fish must have a resting space. It was simply a question of the reproductive forces of nature. The trawlers, in season and out of season, destroyed enormous quantities of food. It had been incontestably proved that an acre of water could produce more food for the people than an acre of land. If that was so why should they neglect this great industry in the way they were doing at the present time? Year by year our fishing was getting less and less. He did not wish to be accused of using strong adjectives, but the language used by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty would not express his views in regard to trawling. If he did so, he would have to go into superlatives, which would not be in accordance with the traditions of this House. A meeting of the great trawling companies had been held at Grimsby, and resolutions were passed unanimously that something must be done with regard to the depletion of fish in the North Sea. There was a unanimous opinion that the time had come when the Government should take action in the matters The trawl owners, notwithstanding the illegal way in which their business was conducted, found that their dividends were decreasing year by year, and they had to build larger and faster boats. This was not a grievance only of a few fishermen in the north of Scotland. It was a question which affected the whole nation. There were fish enough in the sea practically to feed the whole country, and that was an important matter to be kept in view at a time when everybody was considering how the food supply of the country was to be maintained. It was a criminal, wasteful, and sinful thing — he could not get adjectives sufficiently strong for his purpose—to allow these fish to be destroyed in the way that was now done.
An alteration in the law was wanted. They did not want very much. What was suggested by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs would go a long way to help them. It would go a long way to help

971
if the Government would make the law such that the companies and the managers of the companies would have to go to jail and not the poor men who obeyed their behests. The hon. Member suggested that an arrangement should be made whereby the coastguardsmen would be employed to a greater extent than at present, because he believed they might be of the greatest service in protecting the interests of the fishermen. In many cases this would be a labour of love for them. They could render great assistance in the capture of trawlers if the Admiralty would furnish cruisers with small steam launches. If the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland would use the influence they had in the Government, they could get a better class of boats to protect the coasts than were employed at present. The trawlers could at a pinch go at ten or twelve knots a hour. These vessels had a constant habit of trawling inshore, and within the three-mile limit, a bag or sack being pulled over their numbers so that they could not be identified. Something might be done by insisting that trawlers should have their numbers clear and legible.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am not going to interpose my self in the controversy between the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for King's Lynn, both of whom have proclaimed their poaching proclivities. I leave them to fight that matter out between themselves. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has repeated on this occasion a speech which I have very often heard before, and which is very easy to make. It is exceedingly easy to declaim about the grievances of fishermen and to blame the Government, and I only welcome the appearance of the hon. Member for King's Lynn in this debate, because it has served to show that the subject is not an easy one, and that when it comes to a question of enforcing the law you will find that opinion is not all on one side. I had the honour to sit on a Committee of this House which passed the Undersized Fish Bill, and it was impossible to attend to the evidence given before that Committee without having borne in
972
upon one's mind after all, how ill-informed even experts are in regard to this subject. I confess my own sympathies are entirely with the line fishermen, and I think that any ordinary person would come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to carry on trawling, as it is carried on now, without a certain amount of destruction of immature fish. But at the same time, when you come to the expert evidence the subject is not clear, and certainly it is not made any clearer by the results of the statistics gathered together in the interesting report which the Fishery Board of Scotland promulgated last year. But, after all, what has been the position of the Government in this matter? It is one of which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty cannot complain. We, at least, have done more than any other Government did before. We introduced that statutory limit of three miles all round the coast, and gave the power of closing large areas by by-laws. Now the hon. Member complains that the Moray Firth is not effectually shut. I am well aware of that. It is useless to ask us, on a matter of administration, to prohibit the landing of fish in the English ports, as we prohibit the landing in Scotch ports; and for the simple reason that we have statutory powers to do the one and not the other. The subject of the Moray Firth is greatly complicated by the fact that most of the fishing ground is beyond the territorial limits for really effective measures of control, and therefore we are necessarily hampered by the consideration that other nations have a right of fishing there. The hon. Member knows also that we have, as far as lies in our power, helped the movement for an International Inquiry into the supply of food fishes and its diminution, especially in the North Sea. But nobody thinks of the Moray Firth as a breeding ground for food fishes; the breeding grounds of food fishes are on the east side of the North Sea, and the International Commission, to which we have contributed a considerable amount of money, is pursuing investigations in regard to that subject. So far as the Scottish Office is concerned, I repudiate entirely any idea which is brought out by the declamation of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty that there has been the slightest degree of supineness on the part of the Fishery Board of Scotland. The

973
Board have done their very best to police the limits of the sea which, by law, they are entitled to police.
MR. WEIRsaid that he did not complain of the Fishery Board, but of the want of fishery cruisers.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The question is where these cruisers are to come from. The Fishery Board does all that it can do up to the limit of its resources. The hon. Member suspects the Admiralty of want of enthusiasm in regard to this policing service of the sea; but I can assure him that that is not so. It is not altogether an easy piece of work to get a cruiser from the Admiralty, and, after all, the Admiralty may consider that their first duty is in another direction, and that the police protection of local interests is not their first duty. I would remind the hon. Member that he is here on somewhat dangerous ground, because undoubtedly, although everything that the Admiralty has done for us is no more than our right, if he drives us beyond our right, he will see that a great deal more has been done for Scotland in this regard than for Ireland. In other words we have not been shabbily treated in this matter by the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman's complaint is not against our administration, but that we have not more money put at our disposal. I cannot give any hope to the hon. Gentleman that any more money shall be put at our disposal by the Treasury; but we will do in the future, as we have done in the past, our utmost to carry out his wishes.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that within the last year or so a fishing industry in the Solway Firth—one of the most dangerous Sections in the whole sea-coasts of the United Kingdom—had been suppressed by a decision of the courts of law. He referred to the "whammling" fishing. It was a very serious and a sad thing for a number of men who could ill afford it to have their houses, their boats and nets, with which they carried on the most risky of all possible fisheries in the estuary of the Solway, rendered useless. This subject had been brought before a Royal Commission a few years ago; and that Commission
974
were unanimous in recommending that this "whammling" system of fishing should be permitted within certain limits. That recommendation was approved of by the fishermen themselves, and indeed was partly suggested by the fishing interest. Nothing had been held out to them that anything would be done by the Government for these men whom he represented, and who were deserving of consideration. They had nothing to do now but to engage in trawling, which was specially prohibited in the Solway; and that had already led to fatal action. He was not going to trespass on the time of the House by suggesting methods which might be necessary for relieving the condition of these men. He based his case on the recommendations of the Royal Commission; he asked and wanted nothing more. He did not intend to press the Lord Advocate unduly to answer the question which he put to him; for an answer given to a question on a matter of this kind on the spur of the moment might be less favourable than if mature consideration were given to it. But he hoped that the Lord Advocate would take this matter into his mature consideration; and if he could be of the least service to his Lordship, he should be happy to offer it.
MR. BIGNOLDsaid he understood the Lord Advocate to say that there was a divergence of opinion amongst the experts on the Immature Fish Committee, but he ventured to think there was one point on which, most certainly the experts were all agreed. It was an admitted fact that the herring spawned on rocks in-shore, and the first act of the young fish when coming to life was to swim upwards and out to sea, whilst the first act of the round fish was to sink and swim to the shore. The consequence was that the trawler, with his trawl down, say, on an average of an hour and a quarter, would take in a very large proportion of young round fish, and when the trawl was drawn upon deck, it would be found to contain rocks, stones, wood, sea-flowrers, and innumerable immature fish. At least one-third of the "take" of a trawler was so broken by the contents of the net that it was immediately heaved overboard to

975
feed the dog-fish. One fact could not be traversed, and that was that the sea afforded a living to thousands of line and driftmen twenty years ago. Now contemporaneously with the appearance of the trawler it would not yield them sufficient to pursue their calling and pay their expenses. The three-mile limit had been in existence since 1839, but it was only during the last few years it had been so ruthlessly violated. The Moray Firth, closed to British trawlers though open to foreigners, had met with worse treatment than any other waters. Quite recently twenty British trawlers flying the Norwegian flag had dropped their trawls in the Firth. This was an unfriendly act for a friendly Government to attempt to excuse. He could endorse every word of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty as to the terrible misfortune which had overtaken this deserving industry. He understood the Government had made representations to Norway, and though the three-mile limit being a national obligation could not be altered without the signatories of the North Sea Convention, yet still he hoped that the Government would make a determined effort to save the line men by a better policing of the North Sea.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

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

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
To report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT [CONSOLIDATED FUND]—REPORT.
Resolution reported.
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of an annual sum not exceeding £185,000 for providing a special grant to be used for the purposes of the Development of Ireland."
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Grant, or of proposing any reduction in it, but there were circumstances connected with this grant which showed there was a change in the principle in dealing with Scotland and Ireland which had been introduced for the first time in this Resolution. This grant of £185,000 to Ireland was the equivalent to the grant given to England under the Education Act. As had already been pointed out by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, these grants were very unsatisfactory in their operation. One country having got a certain sum which it required for a particular purpose, the other two countries had to take an equivalent share whether they wished it or not for the same purpose, and whether they were prepared to spend it or not. As the Chief Secretary had pointed out, that system had lent itself to a great deal of extravagance; but that had always been the contention on the Liberal side of the House. From the very first they had opposed these grants in aid, and it had been pointed out repeatedly with greater emphasis than the right hon. Gentleman had laid upon it, that these grants led to extravagance owing to Scotland and Ireland having to take this money for a particular purpose whether they were prepared to spend it or not. The Liberal side of the House had always opposed these grants and when in power had never made them, which showed the view they took of the matter. The first dealing of the principle of the equivalent grant with regard to Scotland was in 1888, when Mr. Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Goschen calculated that out of every £100 raised for Imperial purposes, £80 was raised by England, £11 by Scotland, and £9 by Ireland. Those were the proportions in which Mr. Goschen satisfied himself the revenue of the Imperial Government was contributed, and accordingly when England got money out of the Imperial purse for a particular purpose, for every £80 Scotland got £11 and Ireland £9, that being the proportion by which these respective countries contributed to the

977
national purse. Upon that principle there had been about £10,000,000 of money coming year by year from the Imperial purse and being distributed among the local authorities. That was the principle almost universally acted upon. But the Government now introduced a very great change into the principle of applying the equivalent grant. The whole of these grants had been hit her to calculated on the basis of the proportions in which the money was raised for Imperial purposes. Up to the present that principle had never been called into account, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland had now introduced a new measure of calculation, between the three countries, for getting money out of the common purse, by calculating it on the basis of population. The Liberal side of the House had always opposed these grants, but if these grants were to be made, then he contended that the principle which Mr. Goschen adopted was the sound one. The Chief Secretary had told the House that in order to make up this £185,000 the principle was to be changed, and the calculation was to be made on the basis of population. The right hon. Gentleman in denouncing the principle of the calculation being made upon the percentage of the amount raised, had denounced his own Government, who were the persons who had introduced it. It was in operation with regard to £10,000,000 of money at the present moment, and if the right hon. Gentleman now said this principle was wrong, and that the basis of calculation in future should be on the basis of population, then he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether that should apply to the whole of these grants.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dissipate some uncertainties which had arisen in regard to this proposal. In the first place there was some uncertainty as to the amount of the grant to England. The Chief Secretary had stated that he thought it was £1,400,000 but figures had been referred to to show that it was a great deal more. He would be glad to know the real amount that was to be given to England, and how the proportion for Ireland was arrived at. This £185,000 which Ireland was to receive,
978
and which was the equivalent of the grant to England under the Education Act, was not to be used for education until after a certain sum had been taken from it to be used for the flotation of the loan of £100,000,000. That suggested that it should be a charge for one year only, because the charges of flotation could not continue for ever, for there would be a time when all charges for this flotation must cease. But this Report which was before them to-day was to put this charge of £185,000 for ever on the Consolidated Fund. He submitted that that was a most improper and irregular way of charging the money. The Chief Secretary had told them that Ireland's share was to be regulated on the basis of population. The population varied from year to year; but, if they decided that a fixed sum should be issued annually for ever, they would depart from that principle. The proper way of granting money to the Sovereign was to grant it by yearly amounts. That was the only proper method known to the Constitution. There were certain charges, such as the Civil List and the salaries of the Judges, which were properly placed on the Consolidated Fund in order that they might be withdrawn from criticism in that House. They might be regarded as sacred, and they must be the first and indefensible charge on the revenue of the Empire. But that was not so in this instance. This was a charge which evidently required the control and criticism of Parliament. This money was not for any limited, definite and specified purpose; it was not to be expended in any definite limited way. It was suggested that the money should be handed over to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary of the day. That meant that the money might be employed for a purpose which Parliament would not sanction if they had an opportunity of discussing it. The proposal to establish a Roman Catholic University was strongly resisted by many Members of that House, and it ought to be discussed before it was agreed to. But this sum might be employed for that very purpose. It was extremely dangerous to place in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary this permanent sum, of which they would never get an account. Every argument pointed to the propriety of making this an annual charge on the Estimates. The

979
grant to England was on the Estimates, and was subject to the control of Parliament. Why should not this sum granted to Ireland not be put on the Estimates? He saw no reason whatever. He thought the demand made by the Government that this sum should be placed on the Consolidated Fund was most unconstitutional, and the House, if it agreed with the Resolution, would one day bitterly regret it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,)said it was not out of any disrespect to the House that he was not present yesterday when this matter was discussed. He had an important engagement upon public matters at he time, and only heard that the matter was under discussion after the debate had taken place. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the system of distribution which had been adopted was different from the system under which these grants had been distributed previously. No doubt he was right. The Government thought the system of division according to population was a much more convenient and simple way of dealing with this question than by the contribution system. He did not think it was possible really to defend in all its details distribution by contribution. It was impossible to follow taxation in any particular country and to say hew much one part of the country contributed and how much another. The Government therefore thought that the better plan was to adopt the population basis. So far as Scotland was concerned the effect was the same, but undoubtedly Ireland was more favourably treated by the population system than by the other. But, having regard to all the circumstances of Ireland and the character of its population, he thought the House would not grudge Ireland's receiving rather more by taking the population basis than by taking the contribution basis. His hon. friend asked him what was the amount Ireland would receive and what was the amount that England would receive. He presumed his hon. friend meant "What was the extra amount that would be received?" There were certain grants which would be discontinued, and therefore they had
980
to be added to the amount given in the new grant. The additional amount given to England would be £1,350,000, and the amount given to Ireland would be £185,000. Scotland would have £186,000 by either system of distribution. They had added to the Scottish grant £26,000. That carried out an arrangement which was assented to in 1897. He came to the conclusion after a great deal of discussion with the Scottish Office, that they had made out a good claim for granting this additional £26,000, and, therefore, he added it it to the sum based upon population.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Will the grant to Scotland be put on the Consolidated Fund?
MR. RITCHIEsaid it would not. The Government had a very good case for putting both the English and the Scottish grants upon the Estimates, and for having a Bill for the Irish grant. Both the English and Scottish grants were to be devoted to educational purposes.
MR. GIBSONBOWLES: Will Scotland not be able to spend a part of their money in floating loans?
MR. RITCHIEsaid he was happy to think that Scotland did not require them. The alternatives were to put the money on the Votes, to give it as a grant-in-aid, or to do as was now proposed. If additional money was given for the purposes of education, the whole educational system in Ireland ought to be considered. It would be wasteful in the extreme if, simply because England and Scotland had this money for educational purposes, there was given to Ireland for educational purposes an equivalent sum which could not properly be devoted to those purposes until the whole educational system in Ireland had been overhauled. The Government therefore did not adopt the plan of placing the money on the Votes. To have done so would have led to extravagance. Having regard to the fact that money on the Votes has to be expended in the year, it was pretty certain that the money would have been spent in one way or another, and, in all probability, wastefully expended. Another way in which the money might have been given was as a sort of grant-in-aid.

981
However much his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn might object to the plan adopted by the Government, he would certainly have objected to a grant-in-aid much more strongly, because in the case of a grant-in-aid the money need not necessarily be spent in the year in which the grant was made, and that in a matter such as was now under discussion would be a most reprehensible principle. The only other alternative was that adopted by the Government, viz, to proceed by means of a Bill. He did not wish to disguise from the House his feeling that the objections which had been taken to that method of procedure were in a large measure sound objections. It was not a good method, but it was one which under exceptional circumstances might justifiably be adopted. For instance, it had been adopted in exceptional circumstances in, he thought, 1891, when a sum of £40,000 was charged on the Consolidated Fund to assist local authorities in dealing with certain questions arising under the Land Purchase Act of 1891.
The purposes for which this money was to be granted had already been stated. First of all, there was a certain sum for the Irish Land Bill for four years. Secondly, it was to be used for whatever purposes the Irish Office might satisfy the House of Commons were legitimate and proper. The hon. Member for King's Lynn seemed to think that the Government desired to take this large sum away from the knowledge and control of Parliament. Nothing was farther from their intention. As the Chief Secretary had stated, they proposed to present to Parliament full particulars annually, before the money was spent, of the particular purposes on which the money was to be expended. A section of the Bill was as follows—
"Before any money standing to the Irish Development grant is so applied in any year by the Lord Lieutenant, an Estimate, approved by the Treasury, showing the amount, proposed to be applied, with a statement showing the purposes to which and the manner in which it is proposed to apply the money, shall be laid before the House of Commons for a period of not loss than thirty days. If the House before the expiration of that period shall present an Address to His Majesty against any proposal, that proposal shall not be proceeded with, but without prejudice to the making of any new proposal."
His right hon. friend stated yesterday that the Government would consider the
982
suggestion that the House should be enabled to express its opinion upon the proposals at a more convenient time than would be possible under the provision of the Bill. That practically amounted to a promise so to alter the clause he had just read as to bring within the purview of the House at the proper time the proposals for the expenditure of this money. That promise would be carried out, so that before the money was spent there would be full power and opportunity of discussing the purposes to which it was proposed to apply the money. The House would therefore see that the Government had no desire whatever to keep from the knowledge or control of Parliament any portion of the money allocated under this Bill. Their only object in proceeding by way of a Bill was to secure that the money should not be wasted, but applied to purposes that would best serve the interests of Ireland. Although as a general rule he did not approve of Bills for this purpose, he felt certain that the circumstances under which this money was to be given and spent for Irish purposes fully warranted the Government making the present proposal
MR. ASQUITH: We have been glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make an authoritative statement of the grounds which have induced the Government to adopt this method of procedure—a method which, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I will not say he justified, but one which he apologised for and admitted to be an unusual and primâ facie regrettable departure from well-established practice. I wish to make the position so far as we on this side are concerned perfectly clear. No one objects, as far as I know, to Ireland receiving her fair share, whatever may be the proper criterion by which you are to determine it, corresponding to the grant made to England under the Education Act of last year. There is no objection in any quarter of the House to that. But while making that admission, let me pause for a moment to point out what an extraordinary revolution characterises the action of His Majesty's present advisers in relation to this money. Equivalent grants were started a long time ago, when Mr. Goschen was Chancellor of the

983
Exchequer. The theory, then, was that the three parts of the United Kingdom ought for this purpose to be treated as separate entities, but the basis on which the division was made was that of their relative contributions to the Exchequer. Then followed the era of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was the determined foe of the principle of equivalent grants. He denied that there was any such thing as a separable fiscal entities in the United Kingdom, and set his face steadily against any recognition of the claim, either of Ireland or of Scotland, to a substantial grant simply because an additional sum had been given to England. Now we come to the third stage in the evolution of the Government policy; we have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer who differs from both his predecessors. He agrees with Mr. Goschen as to the principle of equivalents and treating the three countries as separate fiscal entities, but he differs from him as to the basis of the division. Throwing aside the precedents of the last twelve years he has adopted as the basis on which the division is to be made in the future, or at any rate so far as the present proposal is concerned, not relative contribution but relative population. A more confused and illogical condition of things it is hardly possible to imagine. The House ought to take the opportunity afforded by this Bill of really threshing out the principle on which these equivalent grants ought to be distributed between the three countries. As a Scottish Member I am interested in the point of view of Scotland, and I am glad to hear that by some strange arithmetical process we shall receive exactly the same sum whether our share is ascertained on the basis of contribution or on that of population.
MR. RITCHIEwas understood to take exception to the word "strange."
MR. ASQUITH: Then I will substitute "happy" for "strange," because we are not damnified by the result. I am not complaining in the least because the effect of the application of the new principle is to increase the grant to
984
Ireland, but I do say that we ought to have some definite and established principle by which the dealings between the three countries should be regulated. I started by saying that nobody objects to Ireland getting her equivalent grant. I will make a second statement which I think will command equally universal acceptance, viz., that no one considers it necessary that the sum so granted to Ireland should be appropriated to identically the same purposes as the money given to England or Scotland. It would be a most pedantic and ridiculous thing, the social conditions and economic circumstances of the countries being so different, to say that because we happened to find that the best channel for this expenditure in England or Scotland was in the improvement of our educational system therefore Ireland must devote her share to exactly the same purpose.
I now come to the third point, and here we do take a different view. Why is this method, admitted by the right hon. Gentleman to be objectionable, and for which I venture to say it is impossible to cite a precedent, being adopted? The right hon. Gentleman did attempt to justify it by what happened, I think in the year 1891, in the Land Bill of that year. You could not have a better illustration of the difference between the old Parliamentary practice and the one it is now sought to set up. There you had a definite sum charged on the Consolidated Fund. You had a definite sum allocated in the Land Bill for specific purposes described in the Bill itself. That is in strict accordance with what is reasonable and usual in such cases. But that is not what is taking place here. Here you are dealing with a sum which you will make a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund, but you leave the purposes to which it is to be applied, and the amount of it to be specifically applied as between those purposes, vague and indefinite, and subject to future change. Surely the right course to take, the course which is in accordance with sound principle and with Parliamentary precedent, was not to have this Bill at all, but to include the matter in the Land Bill, where it properly belongs, because but for the Land Bill this proposal would not have been made, or it would not have been made in anything like its present shape. It ought to have been inserted

985
in the Land Bill, and there the Government ought to have had the purposes to which the money is to be applied specifically earmarked and sanctioned by Parliament. I renew the protest which we made at a previous stage, and which we shall continue to make at subsequent stages, against a method of procedure which is totally unsupported by precedent.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The main point of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife is that the purposes for which this money will be used should be specifically earmarked, and he suggests that this provision could have been put into the Land Bill. The right hon. Gentleman goes further and says that but for the fact that we are producing a Land Bill no such grant would have been proposed.
MR. ASQUITH: I did not say that.
MR. WYNDHAM: But the claim of Ireland to a set-off against the large aid given last year would remain quite independently of the Land Bill. The ultimate uses to which this grant will be put are, as I explained yesterday, to give the Treasury an indemnity, and to give Ireland a promise that its claim against education will be met. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this money ought to be devoted in Ireland to precisely the same object as in England. Ireland is not ready to receive this money for education. Is it to be wasted on immature plans, or is Ireland to lose it until the time for helping education arrives? We hold that it would be an injustice if Ireland is obliged so to wait until she is ready to receive public money for this purpose. One of the reasons which actuate the Government in taking this course is that it has occurred in the services of local government in England, and some of them are important services, and those services have received aid from the common Exchequer a number of years in advance of such aid being given for similar purposes in Ireland. I will not elaborate that argument, because we hold that by setting off one thing against another, no doubt substantial justice has been done.
986
If you balance projects in one country against projects in another country, it will be found that substantial justice has been done. But last year nearly £1,500,000 went to England alone. Ireland, therefore, has a corresponding claim, and the question arises how it is to be used. Are definite objects to be specified in the Bill? Are we to anticipate what public works might be of use? In my opinion there is no alternative between forcing Ireland to waste or to lose this money, or else stating in a Bill that the money belongs to Ireland, and that it should be allocated to such projects as will be of service to that country. I will not now go into the question of parliamentary control. This grant is in a Bill now, and, as I stated yesterday, we intend to insert an Amendment in the Bill which will enable the House to discuss the whole of the matter at a more convenient time than after twelve o'clock. I do not know that there is anything else that calls for a reply. As to giving these grants in the proportion of eighty to England, eleven to Scotland, and nine to Ireland, it was no doubt a reasonable plan at the time of its adoption, after a long period of peace, when there were no sudden expansions in our national expenditure; but those figures would not stand now owing to war charges, and the proportionate amount contributed by Ireland is now less than nine. If you had passed your Education Bill before the war Ireland would have got nine against eight, and in the middle of the war six against nine. Could anything be more illogical than that? The basis of population compares favourably, I think, with the basis which has been suggested as an alternative.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that nobody objected to Ireland having the equivalent grant, but all that the right hon. Gentleman had just stated certainly bore out the idea that those items should be put in the ordinary way on the Estimates of the year. They were going to vote £185,000 a year without any specification as to how it was to be allocated, and it appeared from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read that in any year all the Government had got to do was to

987
frame a scheme for anything they liked—it might be for a Catholic University—they simply placed it on the Table of this House, and then they might carry it without any discussion beyond the ordinary discussion upon a claim of that sort. That was quite unconstitutional, inasmuch as the grant to England and Scotland would be put on the Estimates and debated every year. If it varied every year in Ireland there was no reason why it should not be discussed in the ordinary way, and it was upsetting the whole principle of finance that they should vote a large sum like this to the Government to use in any way they like. They were doing extraordinary things now in finance, and he was quite sure that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have been a party to such a scheme as this. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was particularly strong upon all the constitutional usages of finance, and it seemed a most extraordinary thing that they should go out of their way to form a
precedent which struck at the whole responsibility of this House in finance. The principle had always been that the item should be put upon the Estimates and discussed every year. Every item, and particularly items such as this, ought to be discussed and put upon the Estimates and voted in the ordinary way. He could not understand this principle, for by this proposal they were upsetting every rule which they had boasted of in the past as the bulwark of their financial system. He protested entirely against this sum being put on the Consolidated Fund, and against this being made a new precedent, which he thought was a most dangerous one, for it was handing over a large sum of money to the Government of the day, to do what they liked with, without, apparently, any responsibility.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 54. (Division List, No. 53.)

AYES.

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

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

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

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Arrol, Sir William

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Cranborne, Viscount

Hain, Edward

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hambro, Charles Eric

Austin, Sir John

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Balcarres, Lord

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Denny, Colonel

Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Beckett, Ernest William

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr Haml'ts

Hogg, Lindsay

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

Bignold, Arthur

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Hoult, Joseph

Bigwood, James

Doogan, P. C.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

Joyce, Michael

Bousfield, William Robert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Brassey, Albert

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Keswick, William

Bull, William James

Faber, George Denison (York)

Knowles, Lees

Butcher, John George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Labouchere, Henry

Caldwell, James

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

Flower, Ernest

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Chapman, Edward

Forster, Henry William

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Charrington, Spencer

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fyler, George Arthur

Lowe, Francis William

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Garfit, William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Gilhooly, James

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Lundon, W.

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Macdona, John Cumming

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

M'Govorn, T.

Randles, John S.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Stone, Sir Benjamin

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Majendie, James A. H.

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Valentia, Viscount

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshir

Renwick, George

Walker, Col. William Hall

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Morrison, James Archibald

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Mount, William Arthur

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Russell, T. W.

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

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

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

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

O'Mara, James

Simeon, Sir Barrington

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Sir Alexander Acland. Hood and Mr. Anstruther

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

NOES.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Strachey, Sir Edward

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.

Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Helme, Norval Watson

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Bell, Richard

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Thomas, F. Freeman. (Hastings

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Kearley, Hudson E.

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

Bond, Edward

Lambert, George

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

Brigg, John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Cawley, Frederick

Newnes, Sir George

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Weir, James Galloway

Cremer, William Randal

Perks, Robert William

While, Luke (York, E. R.)

Crooks, William

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Runciman, Walter

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Schwann, Charles E.

Mr. Gibson Bowles and

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Shackleton, David James

Sir Brampton Gurdon.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Dunn, Sir William

Shipman Dr. John G.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Wyndham, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.

IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT BILL.
"To provide for a Special Grant to be used for the purposes of the Development of Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
EVENING SITTING.

  THAMES RIVER STEAMBOAT SERVICE BILL. [BY ORDER.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid that while raising no objection to the Bill in its entirety, he would ask for an undertaking from the promoters that

  991
  any dredging done in the neighbourhood of the bridges under the administration of the Corporation should be carried on under the superintendence and control of the Corporation officials. He thought there was nothing unreasonable in the request, and if an undertaking were given to that effect he should be satisfied. He had no desire to say anything against the Bill.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that on behalf of the promoters he was pleased to give the pledge required by the hon. Baronet.
  MR. BULLsaid the problem of the river communication of London differed very greatly from that of other cities. Those who compared it with the Seine and the Mersey must remember that the Seine flowed through the centre of the city of Paris, that there was very little tide there, and the difficulties we had to combat in the Thames were altogether avoided. With regard to the Mersey, it was merely a ferry, and not a river steamboat service at all. From 1860 or 1870 up to 1876 there was a steamboat service which paid very well, because at that time the fare from Hammersmith to the Bank was sixpence. All that had been altered by the railways, improved bus services, and tubes. In the 'eighties and early 'nineties the river traffic got into other hands and was ruined, not because of the river traffic itself but because the company engaged in pleasure traffic to ports around the coast. He suggested that in order to make it pay the service should be a regular one and carried on during all weathers. It should start in the early morning and be continued until late at night; that the piers which were now absolutely inadequate and placed in the wrong places should be thoroughly overhauled and placed in positions where they were accessible to the public; and that the steamers should be of light draught, with large cabin accommodation, so that the people could be properly housed in wet weather. He would suggest two services, one stopping at all piers up and down he river, and another, an express service, stopping say once at Chelsea on the trip between London Bridge and Hammersmith. He thought the sum mentioned by the County
  992
  Council Bill, £380,000, was barely sufficient for the purpose of such a service as this, because if the thing was done at all it must be done upon a basis which would make it certain that in the course of twelve or eighteen months it would pay; and unless careful thought was given to the financial part, and that was put upon a proper basis, it seemed to him that the London County Council would court failure.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the object of this Bill was to establish a steamboat service on the River Thames. It had been tried several times by private enterprise and had always resulted in a pecuniary loss, and it could hardly be doubted that in this case there would be a very serious loss, which the ratepayers would have to make good, but at the same time it might be well for the Bill to go to a Committee, as that Committee would be able to sift the evidence and come to a conclusion as to the amount of loss the ratepayers would suffer. It would be fair to allow this Bill to be sent to a Committee on condition that the next Bill (the Thames Steamboat Trust Bill) were also allowed to go to the Committee.
  MR. BRIGG, having taken part in the discussion of a similar Bill some years ago, when that Bill was rejected, expressed the opinion that the conditions under which the subject was approached now were somewhat altered. It seemed to him that an opportunity ought to be given to the London County Council to establish a steamboat service, and therefore he supported the Second Reading.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member for Hammersmith had expressed some doubt as to whether a proper river steamboat service could be established under the conditions of this Bill; that £380,000 was hardly sufficient for the purpose. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith regarded as a defect was a virtue; because the money was sufficient for a commencement, and if the hon. Gentleman's hopes were realised,

  993
  it would be an easy matter, when experience justified it, for the Council to ask that the service should be put into the condition that the ambitious scheme of the hon. Gentleman evidently demanded. Everything the hon. Gentleman said with regard to piers was in favour of the Bill; and as to regular and continuous service, better piers, and piers in the proper places, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and was pleased to have his support. Although the hon. Gentleman did not always see eye to eye with him on the County Council, yet, as the late Chairman of the Bridges Committee, he knew the capacity of the river and how badly it was served. He would ask the hon. Gentleman at this stage to reserve criticisms on detail, and support the principles of the Bill.
  He appreciated the conciliatory attitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham, though he did not suggest that it was an indication of repentance for his attitude towards the County Council the other night. The hon. Gentleman thought that the service would not be what its promoters anticipated. As regarded that, he would only say that for years it was obvious to every one, especially Members of the House, who had a unique opportunity of seeing the Thames, that the steamboat service was a disgrace to London, considering the character of the river. It was inadequate, slow, irregular, and too seasonal. That was due to many reasons. One was lack of capital, another lack of enterprise, and a third, lack of capacity. It was provided with bad piers, piers in the wrong places, and no piers at all in the proper places. The management had worsened, and it was safe to say that the service was the worst on what was the finest river in the world. The management had shown no regard as to relations with railways, omnibuses, trams, and bridges; and the regular passengers had been sacrificed to the pleasure traffic.
  Private enterprise under successive managements had signally failed to meet the river requirements of London; and he said, respectfully, that in the interests of the river, and in the interests of the health, leisure, and pleasure of the people of this vast city, private enterprise having failed, public enterprise should step in. The London County Council now asked permission to substi-
  994
  tute that public enterprise. They made that demand under favourable circumstances. The Thames Conservancy practically supported the Bill; and the City Corporation gave it at least a qualified support. The Bill started under favourable auspices. The County Council, being the bridges, embankments, and highways authority for London, believed that they could supply a steamboat service better than any private enterprise, even with more capital, could offer. They would be able to bring a pier to every bridge, and a tram to every pier; and, by interchangeable tickets, a profit could almost be guaranteed; and even if there were a loss in the first two or three years, it would be insignificant.
  In order to carry that out, the Council asked the House of Commons to pass this Bill, to enable the Council to purchase a fleet of new, clean, swift, and modern vessels, which London ought to have. Acting in conjunction with the Thames Conservancy and the City Corporation, the County Council would provide more piers, and better piers, would link the piers with the trams, would provide more favourable approaches, and a service which, he was convinced, would pay. The comparison with Paris was not altogether fair. There was no comparison between the Seine and the Thames. The Seine was not a tidal river; but the Thames had two tides up, and two tides down every twenty-four hours. No other river enjoyed that advantage, and he believed that the tides would lend themselves to a good steamboat service, which, judging from other cities which had instituted similar services, could be made to pay. The County Council was also the ferry authority for London, and had three ferries at Woolwich which were admirably managed. They carried 5,000,000 passengers and 500,000 vehicles every year free; and, incidentally, was allowed by Parliament to lose £20,000 a year of the ratepayers' money. Surely the House of Commons, consistently and logically, private enterprise having failed, should allow the Council, after the experience it had acquired at Woolwich, to carry people up and down the river as well as across the river. There were many other reasons why London should have a steamboat service such as the Bill sought to

  995
  provide, and he asked the House of Commons, respectfully, but with great hope, to allow the Bill to pass its Second Reading and to be sent upstairs to a Committee. The result would be that London would get an efficient, cheap, and regular steamboat service, which it had long lacked, and which it was the object of the Bill to provide.
  MR. CUMMING MACDONAsaid the proposal of the County Council was to provide a grand new service which would be magnificently arranged in every way. That was a most desirable object if it could possibly be attained. The grievance which he wished to press upon the House was that the Trust Society appeared to have forgotten the magnificent services rendered to London and the country by the watermen and lightermen. The County Council, on the other hand, had offered to avail themselves of the excellent services of these men to the best of their ability. Anyone familiar with the history of the country could not forget 1293, when the watermen of London carried the Members for the City of London and their friends from London Bridge to Greenwich for a half-penny, nor the time when the country called upon them to fight, and when they took part in every great naval engagement. When the Members of the House of Commons were tyrannically turned out of their Chamber it was the watermen of London who brought them back again, and the Speaker gave them thanks.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid the hon. Member for Battersea was challenged by the hon. Member for Peckham to state whether he would agree to the Second Reading of the Bill which was to follow, if the Bill before the House were read a second time. Although the hon. Member could not discuss the details of the next Bill he could quite properly have answered that challenge, but he had carefully avoided any reference to it whatever. In regard to the provision of a passenger service on the River Thames there were two proposals before the public. One was embodied in the Bill promoted by the County Council and now before the House. The Bill proposed to take possession of,
  996
  or at all events to supplant, the existing piers and landing places. The private enterprise which had hitherto existed in this matter had involved a large investment of capital, and no less than five of the piers or landing places belonged to those concerned in that private enterprise. The London County Council sought by this Bill, and by their opposition to the Bill which was to follow, to transmit to the Committee upstairs solely the question that they should have the opportunity of supplying the wants of the public in regard to a steamboat service on the river. He asked for a pledge from the promoters of the Bill that the County Council would give fair play to those who had hitherto supplied the service, and that the next Bill on the Order Paper should also be sent to the Committee.
  MR. COHENjoined in the appeal made by the hon. Member for the Shipley Division that a pledge should be given by the hon. Member for Battersea. He himself felt confident of the superiority of the service which would be provided by the County Council, but still he thought both Bills should go upstairs, where the Committee would give them far more consideration than the House could possibly give.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am prepared at the proper time to accede to the request made.

  THAMES STEAMBOAT TRUST BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid he felt that the hon. Member for Battersea was placed in a difficult position when he was asked to give a pledge in regard to this Bill. The hon. Member was an individual member of the County Council, and whether he acceded to the Second Reading of the Bill or not, he himself could not allow the Second Reading to pass without a severe protest. He did not rise to discuss the question whether a steamboat service was required for the Thames,

  997
  but he did rise to ask the House to pause before it sanctioned a measure creating a trust, promoted practically by a company more or less unfortunate in its business undertakings. In it, power was asked that the Corporation, the County Council, and the Conservators of the Thames should be authorised to guarantee the interest on the money. But neither the Corporation nor the County Council had been consulted on this proposed trust, and were ignorant of the arrangement. It was also provided that the Corporation might guarantee interest at 3 per cent. on any sum not exceeding £100,000 to be borrowed or raised; and for acquiescence in this arrangement the Corporation were to have the luxury of putting three trustees on the body. But the most serious suggestion was that the London County Council should be authorised and required to pay money to the trustees out of the county fund, and in the case of the Corporation out of the funds of the Bridge House Estate. Now the Bridge House Estate was a trust carried on under Acts of Parliament, and the City Corporation, even if they so desired, could not hypothecate its funds to be used in the way proposed without the sanction of Parliament.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that his fellow Member for the City is one of the backers of the Bill?
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: I am fully aware of it, but that does not prevent mo from doing what I think right. On behalf of the Corporation he protested strongly against their name being brought into this trust Bill. For such a Bill to go upstairs would be simply wasting the time of the Committee.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he had never listened to a speech in this House with more astonishment than he had done to that of his right hon. friend. This Bill was introduced by the senior Member for the City of London, and his right hon. friend actually asked the House to withhold it from the consideration of the judicial body upstairs. It was difficult for him to accept the idea that the right hon. Baronet, who was the keeper of the City's cash, was able to pledge the Corporation of the City of London to a
  998
  particular course in antagonism to the Bill that was introduced by his colleague. In those circumstances he suggested that the proper course for the House was to leave this question to be determined by its own Committee upstairs. He had the fullest confidence that the House with a sense of fairness would allow the Bill to be dealt with by the judicial body appointed for the purpose.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it was significant that the hon. Member for the City of London, whose name was on the back of the Bill, did not happen to be there to defend it. He did not object to the Bill going to the Committee upstairs because he was convinced that the proposal embodied in it was so unreasonable, impracticable, and he had almost said impudent, that no House of Commons would for a moment think of passing it. Three public bodies, the Thames Conservancy, the City Corporation, and the County Council, all refusing, were to embark £100,000 each of the ratepayers' money to buy up a fleet at a price, according to competent authority, about four times what the total fleet was worth. This was the kind of Bill which the House ought to reject; but the London County Council being, as always, magnanimous, were prepared, if he was allowed to keep his pledge, to let the Bill go upstairs and receive the happy despatch at the hands of a Parliamentary Committee. He appealed to the hon. Baronet to rest content with that.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid that having made his protest he would not attempt to divide the House.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3—
COLONEL WELBYmoved—
"In Clause 3, page 3, line 5, after first 'the,' to insert 'good and sufficient."

999
He said that his object in moving the insertion of these words was that it might be thoroughly known and understood by all those who had to discharge duties in connection with billeting that they could demand good and sufficient accommodation. Whilst in Infantry he was only once billeted himself, and, there being only a small party, they were very well accommodated. Cavalry regiments, were, however, constantly moved throughout the country; and the process of billeting was to send on ahead a billeting party, which went to the constable of the town where the troops were to rest for the night. The constable took the billeting party around the town and billets were allotted for both horses and men. Particularly in the North of England the billets were often very wide-lying, so that it was late before the officers could visit each, and by that time the men had settled down in their billets, had their hot meal, and did not care to complain. He had known many cases where the men had to pay money out of their own pockets in order to procure better accommodation for themselves, and of instances where the men preferred to sleep with their horses in the outhouses rather than occupy the sleeping places provided for them. He also knew of two and three men sleeping in the same bed. In Irish towns the billets were simply filthy. He thought that if the Government paid money for these billets they ought to be good, although the amount was not too large. He had no intention of being unfair to the innkeepers, but as they were to have a better class of soldiers, these ought to be provided with better accommodation.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 5, after the first word 'the' to insert 'good and sufficient.'"
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,said that he could see no reason whatever for the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Under Section 106 of the Act the innkeepers were bound under penalties to provide "good and sufficient accommodation," and the War Office had received no complaints of failure in that duty in any respect.
COLONEL WELBYsaid that Section 106 was unknown to the officers generally. It stated that when an innkeeper was unable himself to billet the men and horses allotted to him, he must provide "good and sufficient accommodation" elsewhere, but this was not stated with regard to the accommodation the innkeeper himself furnished, and therefore was not generally known.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that every officer was bound to know the provisions of the Army Act.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
New Clause (Amendment of 44 and 45 Vic. c. 58., s. 4.)—Colonel Welby.
Brought up and read the first time.
COLONEL WELBYsaid he wished to move an Amendment to Clause 4, to omit the word "shamefully" as applied to the conduct of an officer who abandoned or surrendered a garrison or post, and to insert the words, "without due cause." The Committee would understand how difficult it was for the military authorities to order a court-martial on an officer who had abandoned or surrendered a post or garrison if they had to assume that it was done shamefully. It also made it difficult for the officer himself to ask for a court-martial under that section, because that might be regarded as more or less an acknowledgment that there was some shamefulness in his action. In fact, the section raised a presumption as to the character of the action. There had been too often surrenders in South Africa which might have been shameful or otherwise; this word "shamefully" had stood in the way, and prevented courts-martial from being held. He did not know what was the exact wording of the naval regulations with regard to the loss of his ship by a naval officer, but he could not believe that a naval officer, who was tried for losing his ship through stress of weather, or some other emergency, was tried for "shamefully" losing his ship. It had been pointed out to him that merely to omit the word "shamefully" might render an officer who had retired from a post or position for strategic reasons liable to trial;

1001
that difficulty would be got over by inserting the words "without due cause," instead of the word "shamefully."
MR. BRODRICKsaid he quite understood the object of his hon. and gallant friend in moving his Amendment, but it raised a very much larger question than the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended. He did not anticipate that the change of "shamefully" to "without due cause" would have any material effect on the numbers of officers who might be brought before a Court-martial. There was a great difference between those who held the view of his hon. and gallant friend, and those who administered the Army at this moment, in regard to what should be the subject of a Court-martial. The sentiment of the Army was entirely different from that of the Navy. The sentiment in the Army was that so long as there was any reasonable doubt on the matter in question an officer should not be deprived of his sword and tried by Court-martial; his conduct should be the subject of inquiry which fell short of a decision on the part of the authorities that something had occurred that made it necessary to bring him to justice. That was the opinion of the late and of the present Commander-in-Chief, and of Lord Kitchener. There was the less necessity for the change since the system of sworn Courts of Inquiry had been established, which took the place of Courts-martial, unless the evidence appeared such as to make it incumbent upon the authorities to try the case. He suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed, for he could not possibly accept it, and he did not believe that even if the Amendment were carried many more officers would be tried by Court-martial than now. He did not think that anything had happened in the late war which would justify the Committee in arriving at that conclusion.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that having been shown a good many of the reports of the inquiries held during the late war, he sympathised very much with what his hon. and gallant friend opposite had said. It was pretty clear from the speech made by the Secretary of State for War that if
1002
the right hon. Gentleman was left to himself upon this matter he would probably take the same view. He did not think that after all their experience in South Africa they ought to be guided by the sentiments of their older officers, whose experience was in the past, for they themselves had been trained in the light of what had more recently happened. But the Secretary of State now seemed to think that what happened in South Africa ought not to force the matter on the attention of the Committee. His view was entirely opposed to that. He thought circumstances had happened in South Africa which should induce that House to reconsider this question. In all the cases which had been brought before the House he had supported the War Office.
What was the system which had been pursued in all the many cases of unfortunate surrender which had taken place? In most of them there had been two inquiries, one an informal inquiry and then a formal one. The second inquiry, however, always tended to be a mere confirmation of the proceedings of the first inquiry. In many cases what had happened was that the conduct of the officers who had surrendered had been the subject of a preliminary and informal inquiry while they were prisoners immediately after the event, and when they had been recovered from captivity, sometimes weeks and months afterwards, then the statutory Court of Inquiry had been held, at which they were present and gave evidence. In those cases the proceedings of the first court were placed before the second Court of Inquiry. From the lawyers' point of view the first court was no court at all, for it was a mere informal inquiry for the purpose of informing the General-in-Command of the facts, so that he might take any disciplinary action upon his own authority. As a rule the second court, in the most perfunctory fashion, merely confirmed the finding of the first court. That had almost everywhere been the case, and he was not aware of a single case where the statutory court had reversed the proceedings of the first court. In all these cases, the officers concerned were almost always dissatisfied, and complained that they had not had a trial by Court-martial. Surely it would be better that they should encourage the holding of

1003
Courts-martial. He thought the word "shamefully" discouraged the holding of Courts-martial, both from the point of view of the officer and from that of the authorities of the Army. He thought it would be better to get rid of this word, and introduce such words as his hon. and gallant friend had referred to, because they would increase the number of Courts-martial, thus removing the sense of injustice felt by the accused officers. He could not see that a case had been made out by the Secretary of State for War against the Amendment, which he thought was worthy of the consideration of the House.
COLONEL WELBYsaid he agreed that Courts-martial in the Army and courts-martial in the Navy were regarded from a totally different standpoint; but whether that was for the good of the service he was not so certain. They judged a tree by its fruit. The fruit in regard to the Army tree was these terrible appeals to the House, while the fruit in regard to the Naval tree was that they were never referred to in this House. Although it was true that the Army had gone on for 200 or 250 years in this groove, he very much doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman, in supporting the opinions of his military advisers, was really doing what was best for the Army. He thought the time had now arrived when the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider this question. If they were to remove the word "shamefully" from the latter part of the section, it seemed to him that anybody called into a Council of War with regard to a surrender would be liable to be charged by court-martial, as the Council of War was simply an advisory council, the responsibility must rest with the commanding officer. He was sorry that he could not listen to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and he must press the Amendment which he had put before the House.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid "shamefully" was an extraordinary word to appear in connection with the definition of a crime. It left in the hands of the military authorities absolute discretion in deciding whether or not a
1004
Court-martial should be appointed to investigate an offence. If they chose not to attach to the offence the qualification "shameful" they might deal with it without a Court-martial; but if they chose to attach to it the description of "shameful" they must appoint a Court-martial. The conduct in either case might be the same. It might be an act of negligence, abandoning some position which it was the duty of the officer concerned to defend. Therefore, the conduct with regard to which the officer was censured or dismissed, or punished, might be beyond question. The military authorities might therefore come to the conclusion that they would not have a Court-martial, because they might not choose to describe the offence as "shameful," and they might deal with it as a breach of military duty and punish it as though it were shameful, and exercise all the power given by this section, which involved all the punishments and the disgrace of the officer concerned without giving him the right of a Court-martial. Such a position was most illogical, and operated most unfairly with regard to the officers concerned.
A military offence, for which the punishment attached ranged from a small sentence to a death sentence, ought to be clearly defined. It ought to be defined by some language which was not the subject of controversy'. There was an admirable precedent in the same section of the Navy Act. The expression "shamefully" did not appear in the Navy Act. The words were "Guilty of negligent or designed conduct which involves the loss of his ship." The question of whether an officer had been negligent or not ought to be the subject of a trial, and the officer charged with that offence ought to have the same claim to a Court-martial as he would have if his conduct were "shameful." Let them assume a case in which the charge was negligence. Who was to decide whether it was shameful or not? It might be shameful or negligence of a slight character. The Commander-in-Chief had to say whether he thought this question of negligence should or should not be investigated by a Court-martial. This was all-important to the officer, because he might dispute the allegation of negligence, and yet he was to be deprived of the right of having that dispute determined, because, in the

1005
opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, a Court-martial was not necessary. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would substitute for the words "without just cause" the words "negligently or designedly," or even the word "negligently," he would put the Army Act into consonance with the Navy Act, and at once introduce similar principles in their application to discipline in both branches of the service. If he would consent to this suggestion he would support the hon. and gallant Member.
MR. BRODRICK: As my hon. and gallant friend intends to press his Amendment to a division, I appeal to the Committee not to come to a sudden resolution to change a word which has stood in this Act for so many years. They could not change one word without going into every section of this part of the Act, and considering whether they were going to change the whole spirit on which the Act had been administered. At this moment no man was brought before a Court-martial unless there was a presumption in the minds of those who sent him there that something very much amiss had occurred. If they were going to change that presumption, then they must change it in the other sections, or there would be serious danger of injustice being done. From what I have seen of such cases, I can only say that the presumption is very strong in the minds of the officers who sit in the Court. Unless there is a very strong balance for believing that an officer is guilty, I think you would be very unwise to change one word of the Act and one section, unless the same spirit is to pervade all the charges in this section. For these reasons I ask the Committee not to make so sudden a change after a very brief debate, for it is a change which is not borne out by the wishes of those who are responsible for he discipline of the Army.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he felt great hesitation in consenting to the alteration of a word which had been in the Army Act for so long a time. He saw no argument at all in the comparison between the Navy and the Army Acts in this matter, in so far as it was urged that the difference between the two resulted in appeals to
1006
that House. The appeals to the House in these matters sprang from quite another cause. Let them abolish all military subordinate courts if they liked, but let them maintain that an officer had responsibility. The only way he ought to be cleared was by a Court martial.
MAJOR SEELYappealed to his hon. and gallant friend not to press the matter to a division, because, although he entirely agreed with him, it seemed to him that so painful a subject was hardly meet for a division in that House. He spoke under correction, but he believed that during the South African War Lord Kitchener issued an order that all these painful incidents, irrespective of whether they were "shameful" or not, should be the subject of a Court-martial. If this were so, it was an argument in support of his hon. and gallant friend, and perhaps the Secretary of State would consider the matter in view of his statement.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked how many Courts-martial had been held. He believed that hardly any had been, as a matter of fact. He submitted that the word "negligently" was less applicable to Army matters than to the loss of a ship.
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid the hon. and learned Member who had spoken on the other side of the House quite forgot apparently that there might be gradations of blame attaching to individuals, and that the surrender of posts might be due to other causes than cowardice, as, for instance, want of judgment. He wished most particularly, however, to point out the great danger the House was running in interfering in matters of discipline with the opinions of high authorities in the Army, with their imperfect knowledge and the absence of responsibility; they would run great risk of abusing their privileges if they decided in opposition to the deliberately formed opinion of the military authorities.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 49;

AYES.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (North'nts

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Strachey, Sir Edward

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.

Taylor, Theodoer C. (Radcliffe

Bell, Richard

Helme, Norval Watson

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

Thomas, J. A. (Glam,, Gower)

Brigg, John

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Tomkinson, James

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Toulmin, George

Cawley, Frederick

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Leng, Sir John

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Davenport, William Bromley

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (Huddr'sf'd

Duncan, J. Hastings

Runciman, Walter

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Schwann, Charles E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Shackleton, David James

Colonel Welby and Sir Charles Dilke.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flower, Ernest

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Forster, Henry William

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Percy, Earl

Austin, Sir John

Fyler, John Arthur

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gore, Hn. GRC. Orm-by- (Salop

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Randles, John S.

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

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Hambro, Charles Eric

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bignold, Arthur

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Renwick, George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

Bond, Edward

Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bousfield, William Robert

Hogg, Lindsay

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bowles, Lt-Col. HF. (Middlesex

Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Brassey, Albert

Hoult, Joseph

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Bull, William James

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Keswick, William

Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

Knowles, Lees

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Charrington, Spencer

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawson, John Grant

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. ((Oxf'd Univ.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasq.)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lowe, Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lundon, W.

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Webb, Col. William George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macdona, John Cumming

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Maconochie, A. W.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

M'Govern, T.

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

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

M 'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W.

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

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Majendie, James A. H.

Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

Dvke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morrell, George Herbert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrison, James Archibald

Noes, 143. (Division List, No. 54).
Another New Clause (Amendment of 44 and 45 Vic, c. 58, s. 42.)—(Colonel Welby.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
COLONEL WELBYnext moved a new clause with the object of amending Section 42 of the Army Act, by inserting words to provide that in cases where there was a difference between a colonel of a regiment and his subordinate officer, or between a colonel of a regiment and a general commanding, the Commander-in-Chief should cause the complaint to be inquired into and, if satisfied of the justice of the complaint, take the necessary steps to give full redress to the complainant. It seemed to him that in: these cases the officer should be entitled to as much justice as the private soldier. The words in the Army Act only directed the Commander-in Chief to examine into a complaint of this kind, and he believed there had been many cases in the Army in which the Commander-in Chief had settled the matter solely on his own authority. That had often left a sense of injustice in the minds of those against whom the ruling had been given, and he thought that if that sense of injustice was removed it would be a very good thing for the Army. The words he proposed would, he believed, have that effect. They would not interfere with those cases which were brought directly under the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, as in the instance of a General officer commanding an Army Corps, but they would apply to the cases indirectly brought under his notice—cases in which he had no personal knowledge of the circumstances. He wanted to secure full and proper inquiry, as it sometimes occurred that when a high official dealt with these questions on his own authority he was secretly influenced by other considerations. What was already considered a right course in the case of the private soldier must be equally just in the case of an officer.
Question proposed.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he fully appreciated the object of the hon. and gallant Member, but he hoped he would not press his proposal, which he assured
1010
him would not advance the object he had in view, and would, without further amendment, appear to prejudice the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for War and to the King.
COLONEL WELBYpointed out that by-Section 42 the Commander-in-Chief was required to examine, which meant direct personal inquiry, while he proposed to provide that the Commander-in-Chief should cause inquiry to be made.
Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put and negatived.
Another New Clause (Special Enlistments).—(Major Seely.)
Brought up and read the first time.
Proposed new Clause—
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section no recruit shall, after the passing of this Act, be enlisted in the Regular Forces unless he can produce a certificate of his birth to the recruiter, nor unless he is eighteen years of age.
"(2) A recruit may be enlisted without the previous production of his birth certificate if the approving officer shall be satisfied that every reasonable effort has been made to obtain such certificate, and that it is not practicable to obtain it, but in that case such officer shall state in writing what steps have been taken to obtain such certificate, and why he is of opinion that it is impracticable to obtain it.
"(3) A recruit may be enlisted who is known or believed by the approving officer to be more than seventeen, but less than eighteen years of age, if such approving officer shall be of opinion that, by reason of exceptional physical health and development, such recruit will make an efficient soldier; but in that case such officer shall state in writing the height, weight, and chest measurement of such recruit, and any other circumstance which shall appear to such officer to justify the enlistment, of such recruit. Every written statement made by an approving officer in pursuance of this section shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State, and a return of all such statements made in any year shall be laid before Parliament not later than the pre-entation of the annual Army Estimates to the House of Commons in the year following.
"(5) This section shall be construed together with Part II. of the Army Act, and the expression 'approving officer' means the officer mentioned in Sub-clause (e) of Sub-section 4 of Section 80 of that Act."
MAJOR SEELY, in moving the clause, said it embodied the Resolution unanimously agreed to a week ago on the Motion of the Secretary of State, modified to the extent of allowing recruits to be accepted at the age of seventeen under exceptional circumstances. It was therefore entirely uncontentious. It had been

1011
suggested that it was contrary to precedent for the actual words of the clause to be embodied in such a Bill. He did not know whether it was so or not, but it might be possible to place words to the same effect in the recruiting regulations or in an Army Order. It was important that the matter should be dealt with, because, although the Secretary of State was heart and soul with them in this respect, those who administered the law for him could not be expected to be so anxious to carry out the rule, they naturally being desirous of getting as many recruits as possible. He begged to move.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)said it was his right hon. friend's intention to carry out, not only in the letter, but in the spirit, the pledges he gave on a previous occasion. He begged to assure the House that such words would be put in the recruiting regulations as would show those who were responsible, either at headquarters or elsewhere, for getting recruits, that his right hon. friend was determined to adhere to the resolution at which the House arrived unanimously a few days ago.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid the language of the Financial Secretary was a great disappointment to him. The information privately conveyed to many Members of the House, who were consequently not present, was that with one trifling exception this new clause would be embodied in an Army Order. Substantially the proposals were accepted, but they were not to be put into an Act of Parliament, but issued by administrative order. If the Government were not prepared to adhere to that understanding he would be obliged to move to report Progress.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he was at a loss to understand his noble friend's speech. He knew of no understanding of the kind.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he would substitute the word intimation; he did not want to use an offensive phrase.
MR. BRODRICKsaid his noble friend had made him a full statement of what passed, and he certainly did not convey any impression of the kind to him. What the noble Lord now asked for was entirely at variance with what he had said on a previous occasion. He then had distinctly said that the military authorities could not call upon recruits to furnish certificates of birth, but that all diligence would be used in seeing that the physical equivalent of the age which the recruits represented themselves to be was obtained. He also denied that his noble friend had made any promise to present a special report to the House on each recruit taken under the recognised standard.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he was sorry, but he must move to report Progress, because, believing that this matter was to be settled in the way he had described, many hon. friends of his were not present. It would be discourteous and unfair to proceed with the discussion when they were not present. He moved to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
MR. BRODRICKsaid he really must complain a little of his noble friend. His noble friend, as he understood, had not himself been a party to any arrangement, but spoke on hearsay, and his suggestion was not supported, so far as he was aware, by anybody who had any agreement with the Financial Secretary. In the absence of any such statement he thought his noble friend was going very far.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I am not making any imputation. I simply say as a matter of convenience.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that in his view the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was right in his statement. He himself received, as he understood, a distinct assurance from the Financial Secretary that the provisions in this Clause should be substantially adhered to, especially with regard to the return being furnished which was referred to in Section 3.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that question could not be raised now. The question he had to put was to report Progress.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he was merely explaining reasons which he thought might lead to an agreement on the matter. He understood that it was plainly stated that the provisions should be broadly adhered to. Such a vague statement as had been made by his noble friend the Financial Secretary was not what he had been led to expect, and in that respect he entirely supported his noble friend the Member for Greenwich.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was one of those who was informed of the nature of the arrangement. It was by a mere accident that he was present, and he knew that several hon. Members were absent in consequence of the intimation they had received.
LORD STANLEYsaid this was one of those disagreeable incidents in which two persons disagreed as to what had happened. When his hon. and gallant friend and he discussed this Amendment, he told him that it would be impossible to accept it as it stood, including the provision insisting upon the production of a birth certificate, because, as he pointed out, his right hon. friend had clearly shown that, in his opinion, it was not feasible, even if it were desirable. He certainly intended to convey, and in his humble judgment did convey, to his hon. and gallant friend that all the
Government could do was to put into the rules for recruiting such words as would bear out to the fullest extent the resolution unanimously arrived at the other day in the House, a resolution, which, he thought, it was clearly shown would go far towards meeting the present Amendment.
MR. PIRIEhoped the Motion would be pressed to a division. There was no question on which there had been more shilly-shallying for years than this, and it was time it was brought to a definite issue. No valid reason had ever been assigned why a birth certificate should not be asked for.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he hoped the Government would accept the Motion. If not, it really was treating their supporters with, he would not say unfairness, but with very great discourtesy. ["Oh!"] He was not imputing anything to his right hon. friend. If a misunderstanding arose, and a great number of Members who took an interest in the subject were consequently absent, it would be only the ordinary courtesy with which the Government treated the House to agree to the Motion to report Progress.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 45; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 55.)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hoult, Joseph

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Johnstone, Heywood

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Renwick, George

Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Keswick, William

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Knowles, Lees

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Cranborne, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lawson, John Grant

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Denny, Colonel

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Bristol, S

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, H C. (North'mb. Tyneside

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lundon, W.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Maconochie, A. W.

Talbot,, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Taylor, Austin (East, Toxteth)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Govern, T.

Thornton, Percy M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Valentia, Viscount

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Majendie, James A. H.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Flower, Ernest

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Walker, Col. William Hall

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

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

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Webb, Col. William George

Fyler, John Arthur

Morrell, George Herbert

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

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

Morrison, James Archibald

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Gore, Hon GRC Ormsby- (Salop

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Mount, William Arthur

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

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute)

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Percy, Earl

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

Randles, John S.

Original Question put, and negatived.
COLONEL WELBYsaid he wished to bring certain matters to the attention of the Government, in the hope that they might be remedied. He wished especially to direct attention to the insufficient breakfast, costing 1½d. which, was given to troops on the march. That was not much for a soldier to start on a march of twenty or thirty miles. There had been a great improvement in the feeding of the soldier in recent years; and he would ask whether there ought not to be some increase in this scale of charges. A man ought to be given a good square meal before he started on a march in a morning. He did not think the cost would be very great. As it was the men had to supplement their breakfast out of their pay. That did not tend to encourage recruiting, as the men talked about the amount of money they had to spend. He therefore hoped that the scale would be somewhat increased, as had been done in 1892.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time on Monday next.

PISTOLS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
MR. HELMEsaid he asked the House in the interests of public safety to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, which proposed to strengthen the law in order to prevent the sale of pistols to children and young persons, and thereby prevent the accidents that they heard of from time to time. There was scarcely a day that disastrous and fatal accidents from the use of pistols by young persons were not reported. Even to-day there was a report of the death of a child, shot by his brother. The principle of the Bill had met general approval outside the House, and with the support of the police and

1017
coroners. The Secretary to the Coroners' Society of England and Wales had written expressing his deep regret that the Bill of 1893 and later Bills had to be dropped, and assured him of their assistance in this endeavour. The police were also of opinion that a measure of this kind was needed; and the principle of the measure had been favoured by the opinions of His Majesty's Judges Grantham and Bingham, who from the Bench had spoken disapprovingly of the indiscriminate sale of revolvers, and stated that some restriction should be placed on the sale of toy pistols. In 1893, and in 1895, the House of Commons assented to the Second Reading of Bills for this purpose; but, through the accidents of Parliamentary procedure, they were later discarded. The hon. Member for West Leeds, Mr. H. J. Gladstone, when supporting this Bill said—
"Piles and piles of papers at the Home Office, including letters from Judges and Coroners, urged that some restrictive legislation should be passed in respect to pistols and toy pistols."
The proposal in the present Bill was that whoever sold a pistol should keep a record of the sale, which record should be open to the police; and that a pistol should not be supplied to any person who was not able to produce a game licence, or a licence to carry a gun. With regard to children, it was proposed that no one under the age of sixteen should be able to purchase or hire a pistol. In order to meet the views of those who desired to avoid too great restrictions of the rights of the public, the Bill had been drafted in a very moderate form; and he hoped it would meet with the approval of those who were solicitous for the lives and safety of the people.
MR. WHITE RIDLEYsaid, as one who had some share in drawing up the Bill, he wished to second the Motion. The promoters of the Bill had tried to take out anything that might interfere with the legitimate trade of gunmaking. It was provided that anyone who wished to purchase a pistol should produce the licence which he was compelled by law to have. Their only object was to prevent accidents, which happened very frequently, and which were caused by boys
1018
playing about with pistols. They had put in a provision which would prevent any complications arising in connection with cadet corps or small rifle corps. Section 4 would obviate any difficulty of that sort. In these circumstances he sincerely hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass and be referred to a Committee.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,said that, as far as the Home Office was concerned, there was no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Members who had spoken in support of the Bill had submitted it to the consideration of the Department, and no objection was taken to the Second Reading. It was quite possible, however, that Amendments might have to be introduced in Committee, but he had no objection to offer at that stage.
Bill read a second time.
MR. HELME*MR. HELME moved to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Law.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he thought the Standing Committee on Trade would be better.
MR. HELMEsaid he had no objection to accept the suggestion.
MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid it would be better to send the Bill to the Standing Committee on Law. Legal points of view would have to be considered; and, moreover, there was a great deal of work before the Standing Committee on Trade.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Lord Advocate).
Debate arising.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid there was a very general desire on the part of the licensing authorities that this Bill should be passed. The only city which had not asked for it was Edinburgh. He knew that the right place for a reform of this kind would be in the Government Licensing Bill, now before the House; and he had great hopes that the Lord Advocate would take this opportunity of stating that he would incorporate it in his measure.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,), said that he was well aware that the question was one which excited very considerable interest; and he was quite acquainted with the arguments which were used on the subject. It was a matter which excited very serious discussion; and it could be perfectly well embodied by an Amendment to the Government Bill. There would be no difficulty in raising the question, and if it were raised on Monday, he could promise his hon. friend that it would have his serious consideration. In these circumstances, he felt sure that his hon. friend would not press the Bill now, because in the present state of the House, he could not feel himself bound by any decision that might be come to. The whole matter would be carefully fought out in the Grand Committee, to which he hoped the Licensing Bill would be sent; and he should be sorry to prejudice the question by having to vote against it on the present occasion. Therefore he moved the adjournment of the debate.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid he gladly assented to the Motion of his right hon. friend, who admitted that the question could be raised on the Government Bill, and would not be ruled out of order.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he thought it was a pity that the Lord Advocate did not agree to the Second Reading; as on a previous occasion the House of Commons passed the Bill, which was defeated in the House of Lords. He did not see how the Lord Advocate could oppose the Bill, the Government having assented to it previously. By giving the Bill a Second Reading the
1020
House would again put on record its view; and the Government could prevent it going further if they thought fit. He hoped the Lord Advocate would withdraw his Motion.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was extremely surprised at the doctrine just enunciated by the hon. Gentleman, viz., that when a Member of the Government assented to the Bill, the House should immediately agree with the Government. The hon. Gentleman thought the Bill was a good one, but he did not agree. He was very much opposed to it; and it did not follow because the Government agreed to it that everyone else was bound to accept it. Surely the hon. Member must be aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House had of late certainly not agreed with the Government. If the Lord Advocate were to withdraw his Motion, and assent to the Second Reading of the Bill, he should be obliged to adduce reasons why the Bill should not be passed. The question as to whether the House should now adjourn appeared to him to admit of no reasonable objection. Of late years there had been a considerable number of Bills on this subject, and he did not at all agree that their enactment had altogether been advantageous. Some of them had been hurried through the House, as the hon. Gentleman would hurry this Bill. He was at a loss to understand the action of the hon. Gentleman. He had heard the hon. Gentleman state over and over again that the idea of legislating at a few minutes to midnight was wrong. Only a few days ago, the hon. Member pointed out that it was impossible to consider a measure at a few minutes' notice.
And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 23rd April.
Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.