Sitting of 21 April 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Broadstairs Gas Bill, read the third time, and passed.
Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Bill, a verbal Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Great Northern and City Railway Bill; Ipswich Gas Bill; Market Drayton Gas Bill; Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill; Sutton District Water Bill, read the third time, and passed.
London Hydraulic Power Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Maidstone Gas Bill as amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Midland Railway Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Clapham Junction and Marble Arch Railway (No. 1) Bill (by Order); Central London Railway Bill (by Order); Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (New Lines and Extensions) Bill (by Order); Metropolitan District Railway (Works) Bill (by Order); North West London Railway Bill (by Order); Orders for Second Reading read and discharged; Bills withdrawn.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY).
Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cohen and Mr. John Burns.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Petition for additional provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Moresby; Oatlands; Harrington; and Allhallows Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Warrington; Hartlepool; Leicester; Loughborough; Yeovil; Blackpool; Stalybridge; and Burslem; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Tillicoultry; Ayr; Rathven; and Mains; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION CODE (SCOTLAND), 1903.
  Petition from Edinburgh, for alteration of Article 13; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Dundee; Muirkirk; Logie; and Kettine; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Glasgow (four); Edinburgh; Leith; Greenock (two); and Dundee (eleven); to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of law: from Hindley; and Stalybridge; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Tisbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Greenock, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Ramsgate; and Grimsby; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES' DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Oatlands; Harrington; Moresby; and Allhallows Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The following Papers, presented by Command of His Majesty during the Easter Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896:—
ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
Copy of Thirteenth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland.
ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
Copy of Report for the year 1901.
TREATY SERIES (No. 5, 1903).
Copy of Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark for regulating the fisheries outside territorial waters in the ocean surrounding the Faroe Islands and Iceland. Signed at London, 24th June, 1901. Ratifications exchanged at London, 28th May, 1902.

EGYPT (No. 1, 1902).
Copy of Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the finances, administration, and condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1902.
Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2952 to 2958 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of February 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return for the quarter ended 31st March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRARIAN OFFENCES (PROVINCES) (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return by Provinces of Agrarian Offences in Ireland for the year ended 31st December, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKHOUSE INFIRMARIES (IRELAND) (NUNS EMPLOYED).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd April; Mr. Sloan]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MARTIAL LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA).
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the Administration of Martial Law in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the Progress of Administration in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the Finances of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the year ended December 31st, 1902, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS.
  Copy presented, of Index to Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives Abroad on Trade and Subjects of General Interest (with Appendix), 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL EXPORTS, ETC.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th February; Mr. D. Á Thomas]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 111.]
  SEA FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, 1902.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 8th April; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 112.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University for the year ended September 30th, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrew's for the year 1901–2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 114.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  English, Scotch and Irish Contributions to Imperial Revenue.
  Mr. LAMBERT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net contribution to Imperial Revenue of England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, for the years 1894–5, 1898–9, 1899–1900, 1901–2, and, if available, 1902–3.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The Balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which were available for Imperial expenditure after meeting the local expenditure of those divisions of the United Kingdom, were as follows:—

  England.

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  £

  £

  £

  1894–5

  54,535,000

  6,687,000

  2,074,000

  1898–9

  63,402,500

  7,838,000

  1,725,000

  1899–1900

  69,540,500

  8,660,000

  1,684,500

  1901–2

  87,619,000

  10,996,000

  2,570,200

  Agricultural Rates Act—Exchequer Grants.
  Mr. LAMBERT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total issues out of the Exchequer for the most recent year available under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, England; its equivalent for Scotland; and the issues to Ireland under the Local Government Act, 1898.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The amounts issued from Imperial Revenues in the financial year 1902–3, under the Agricultural Rates Acts, England and Scotland, and for the Agricultural Grant under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, were: To England, £1,327,981 5s. 11d.; to Scotland, £280,413 5s. 3d.; to Ireland, £727,655 0s. 0d.; the last amount was part of a total issue to Ireland of £1,018,226 13s. 8d. under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Old Battleships as Floating Forts.
  Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, before any more of the older types of battleships are broken up or otherwise disposed of, he will consider the advisability of utilising some of these ships as floating forts, provided with modern guns and manned by Naval Volunteers, for the defence of mercantile ports such as Liverpool, Glasgow, Hull, Bristol, and Belfast.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. PRETYMAN,: The cost of fitting these vessels with modern ordnance would be prohibitive, and it is chiefly for this reason that many of the older types of battleships have not been modernised for use in the Fleet.

  Venezuelan Arbitration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what is the present state of the negotiations with regard to the recent war in Venezuela and the proposal for
  8
  arbitration; and are any, and if so what, questions relating thereto still unsettled.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): Article V. of the Protocol signed on February 13th, 1903, provided that any question as to the distribution of the Customs revenues to be assigned for the payment of the claims specified in Article III. of the said Protocol, and as to the right of Great Britain, Germany and Italy to a separate settlement of their claims, should be determined, in default of arrangement, by the Tribunal at the Hague by arbitration. The agreement prescribing the precise terms of reference is now under discussion with Venezuela and with the Powers interested, but as negotiations are still proceeding at Washington, it would be contrary to the practice of His Majesty's Government to make any statement of the kind suggested.

  West Indian Sugar Industry.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies can he now state what has occurred with regard to the Bill introduced into the Legislative Council of the Crown Colony of Jamaica empowering the guarantee out of the colonial revenues of the interest on capital employed in establishing sugar factories.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Central Factories Law, 1902 which received the Governor's assent on the 2nd August last, enabled the Government of Jamaica to guarantee interest at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent. on capital invested in any approved scheme for the establishment of Central Factories, not necessarily confined to the sugar industry. This law has been amended by the Central Factories Law 1902, Amendment Law, 1903, which received the Governor's assent on the 1st April. This limits the rate at which such interest may be guaranteed to a maximum of 4 per cent. Instructions have been issued to the Governor precluding the entertainment of any scheme involving a guarantee of interest at any

  9
  rate higher than that which the Government Inscribed Stock bears in the London market. No action has been taken under these Laws.

  New South Wales and the Sugar Rebate.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies have the inquiries, which were to be made on 23rd February last as to the communication of the Premier of New South Wales protesting against New South Wales having to bear the cost of a rebate on sugar, now been completed; and can he lay upon the Table the text of that communication.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There has not vet been sufficient time to enable me to receive a reply to the inquiries which were addressed to the Governor-General of Australia on this subject.

  The Bagdad Railway.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the case that arrangements have been concluded between the promoters of the Bagdad Railway and the British group of financiers for the raising of the share capital allotted to this country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: No, Sir; there is no change at all since I last spoke to the House on the day the House separated.

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS I.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course
    10
    of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."
    MR. JOHN DEWAR MR. JOHN DEWAR (Inverness) moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to draw attention to the decision of the Lord High Commissioner to remove his Court and Levées from Holyrood Palace to the Station Hotel. He declared that if this change was to be made permanently, it would do a good deal to remove the sentiment which at present existed in Scotland in favour of the State connection. If the Church of Scotland was to be disestablished, the people of Scotland would prefer that it should be disestablished on broader grounds than on the question whether or not Holyrood Palace was habitable. He should like to be informed whether this was a mere temporary arrangement, and if, in another year, the Lord High Commissioner would revert to Holyrood Palace, which had so many historical associations. To put himself in order he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,500, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. John Dewar.)
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid he knew that the question had created great consternation in Scotland, and he might say on behalf of the Board of Works that what they had heard and seen during the last two or three days had come as a great surprise to them. He might say at once that the Lord High Commissioner Lord Leven and Melville, was acting on his own responsibility and without any authority from the Government as a body. The Board of Works were fully alive to the fact that some little work was wanted to be done as regarded the drainage of Holyrood Palace, and this year they had set aside a sum of £3,500 for drainage and other sanitary arrangements. These arrangements were not nearly so bad as had been made out by certain newspapers, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that although the Lord High Commissioner had, on his own responsibility, determined not to live at Holyrood,

    11
    but simply to hold his Levées there, yet at the same time this was not to be regarded as a precedent, and was only a temporary arrangement. He hoped that by next year the drains would be brought to a satisfactory state.
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid they had got very little enlightenment from the statement which had just been made. What they wanted to know was what was being done by the additional money to be expended on Holyrood Palace? In Scotland the feeling was not only one of surprise, but one akin to indignation that this slight should have been put upon their country. For his own part he had very little sympathy with the whole of the procedure of the Lord High Commissioner, with bands of music playing and processions in the streets; but the other aspect of the question was that they were voting money for the upkeep of this Royal Palace absolutely in the dark as to the true reason why the representative of Royalty declined to establish himself there. Instead of going to the Royal Palace, he had taken up his quarters in a public-house in Edinburgh. This representative of Royalty did not even think of establishing himself in a temperance public house—but in a place with an "on" licence, facing a public street, where his State coaches and the like would be a great interruption to the traffic of Edinburgh. There he would receive, and give dinners, and in the meantime Holyrood Palace would be given over to the moles and the bats. What were the intentions of the Government with regard to Holyrood? Did they mean to hand it over to the moles and bats, or did they mean to let it as a brewery? It seemed on the face of it to be a great slight to pay to the Church of Scotland, and to historic associations, which were dear to very many of the Scottish people. The statement they had heard was that the Government were just about as much surprised as the people of Scotland. Why should they be surprised? He supposed the Government had some share in the selection of this representative, whose salary was put upon the Votes passed by the House. If Holyrood Palace was not fit to receive him,
    12
    why should that not have been foreseen and provided for? If his salary was not sufficient to enable him to reside in the Palace and he had to go into licensed premises, why was that not also put upon the Vote? It was said that the Lord High Commissioner had done all this upon his own responsibility. Were the Government going to leave him in that position, that he might put this slight upon the Church and upon the nation? All the Government told them was that they were very much surprised. He never heard of public money being expended on grounds of that kind, and he hoped that before they were done with it they would have the question threshed out. He would ask, therefore, whether the Government knew and approved of what Lord Leven and Melville had done, whether they meant to put Holyrood in a state fit to live in, and whether, if by this Vote it was put in a habitable state, Lord Leven and Melville was to reside there, or to live in licensed premises.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he desired to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could assure the Government that the announcement that the Lord High Commissioner was going to reside in the North British Station Hotel, and not at the ancient Palace of Holyrood, had raised a feeling of consternation. Nations were moved by sentiment; they were proud of their Holyrood Palace, for they had few Royal Palaces existing in Scotland now, and if the Lord High Commissioner did not find it suitable to reside in Holyrood, he thought it was a matter that deserved a reprimand from the Government. He should like to hear something stronger. He should like to hear that the allowance of the Lord High Commissioner was withdrawn unless he held his Court in Holyrood Palace.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. C. SCOTT DICKSON,said he entirely associated himself with the views expressed as to the sentiments of the Scottish people regarding Holyrood and its associations, but he confessed he did not understand why on this not very important matter they should have suggestions about the severance of Church and State, temperance legislation, "on" and "off"

    13
    licences, and slights on the Scottish national character and historical associations. He was sure that no one would less desire to put any slight upon the Church of Scotland, or upon the historical associations of the Scottish people, than Lord Leven and Melville. He was the more satisfied of that in vie w of the historical connection of Lord Leven's family with the office he now held. The situation, he thought, had been quite fairly described by the hon. Member for Ramsey. He noticed that the Vote they were now dealing with was put thus—
    "Holyrood Palace—Sanitary Improvement, £3,700. A very thorough overhaul and rectification of the drainage is necessary according to the report from the Board's principal architect in Scotland."
    He thought the condition of the drains went no further than that they were not quite up-to date. Lord Leven and Melville's position was this, that while these works were in contemplation and in progress, and entirely as a temporary measure, and not in the least degree to sever the connection between Holyrood and the pageant connected with the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he should take the next best alternative by residing in what was undoubtedly the newest hotel in Edinburgh, and therefore, he supposed, the most up-to-date, and, so far as he remembered, one of the nearest, if not the nearest, to Holyrood Palace. It was quite plain it was out of the question that they should, as suggested by Mr. Shaw, express disapproval of the action of the Lord High Commissioner or give orders as to where he was to reside. So far as his recollection served him, there was no item of salary attached to the office of Lord High Commissioner, but a certain amount was allowed for entertainments—which amount he understood was very inadequate so far as the actual expenditure was concerned. He hoped the Scottish Members and the Committee generally would accept the assurance that there was not on the part of the Government, and certainly not on the part of the Lord High Commissioner, any desire to cast a slight upon Scottish feeling in this matter, and that when the necessary operations have been carried through the old practice will be reverted to.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that he should like to say how the matter struck him. The statement of the Solicitor-General left the matter in all that mystery to which his hon. friend referred. They had had no explanation whatever. Surely there was something under the surface here. [A VOICE: Drainage, and Laughter.] He admitted that his phrase had a larger meaning than he intended. What there was under the surface had existed in Holyrood for a considerable length of time, and Lord Leven and Melville had been Lord High Commissioner two or three times, so that he was well aware of the condition of things. It must be borne in mind, too, that Lord Leven and Melville only occupied Holyrood for a short time, perhaps not more than a fortnight in the year. During the remainder of the year the Palace was at the disposal of the Board of Works to set things right. There should be no possibility of the interruption of any function by the Board of Works setting things right. What he wanted to know was whether the Lord High Commissioner had complained of the state of Holyrood before this year, and whether he had complained of the action of the Board of Works. If the state of things was so bad as to at all justify him in taking this step, then the Board of Works ought to have corrected what was amiss during the time at their disposal. In this year they were taking money to repair and renew what required repair and renewal, and until this was done Lord Leven and Melville was reluctant to take up his residence in Holyrood Palace. An explanation was clearly required of the action, or rather the inaction, of the Board of Works. That the Board of Works should delay putting Holyrood Palace into a habitable condition until the very fortnight in the year when it was required for a public function which was of immemorial habit, and which excited a great deal of interest among the Scottish people, required some explanation. As regarded the coming year, Scotland was now particularly happy, because they had not only a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer but a Scottish Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom they were glad to

    15
    see in that office. He had no doubt that under the watchful eye of the new Financial Secretary similar neglect of Holyrood would not occur again, and that the new Secretary would be willing to spend any money required in order to put the ancient residence of the Royal House of Scotland in good condition. But they wanted an explanation of the neglect of the Board of Works to put Holyrood House into a fit state to receive Lord Leven and his household, and to be the scene of the festivities and the ceremonies which usually occurred at this time of year.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not think that Scottish Members would derive any advantage from pressing this matter to a division, as the only result would be that the money would not be expended at all. He understood that the real delinquent, if there were one, was Lord Leven himself. Here he should also like to congratulate Mr. Elliot in his double capacity of Scotsman and Financial Secretary, and, he might add, as Liberal Unionist. Lord Leven was also a Scotsman, and after he had accepted this State appointment he had found that his duties required him to expose himself to the risk of typhoid in an insanitary Scottish castle. Although he held that Lord Leven ought to sacrifice himself on the altar of his country on this occasion, there certainly remained the question why these drains were not altered sooner. He had always understood that the proper time to overhaul sanitary arrangements was the winter. [Mr. ANSTRUTHER: Not in Scotland, and Laughter.] However, it was clear that a most inopportune moment had been chosen for the work.
    MR. BLACKassociated himself with the remarks of preceding speakers on the Opposition side of the House. Even after the explanation which had been given there was no guarantee that the drainage of Holyrood would be put in proper order. The question was whether sufficient money would be expended to make Holyrood Palace habitable, not only for the Lord High Commissioner, but for His Majesty, who was so
    16
    soon to visit Edinburgh, and who they all hoped would repeat his visit. There really seemed to be a conspiracy on the part of the Front Government Bench to stifle national sentiment north of the Tweed. They first of all found utter callousness to Scottish sentiment regarding the numerals of the Royal title, and now they found an attempt to divorce from the sittings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland the time-honoured custom of the Lord High Commissioner's residence in Holyrood.
    MR. WEIRthought the Committee ought to be informed why this drainage had not been attended to at an earlier stage. He deplored the fact that the Lord High Commissioner should seek to change his quarters, and to hold his courts at a public-house instead of in the Palace at Holyrood, and he hoped the Government would give an assurance that it should not happen after this year.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,agreed with the hon. Member for Banffshire that there was nothing more to be deplored than the loss of sound national sentiment, but he was bound to say that "sound national sentiment" occasionally broke out in most unexpected places. It had never occurred to him until this afternoon that the fact that the High Commissioner thought it safer, in the existing condition of the drains at Holyrood, to live in an hotel, would have been the cause of an outbreak of national sentiment. Most Members probably had experience of the extremely inconvenient season at which those with whom they were connected found it impossible to live in a house because the drains were not in a fit condition. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had said what an inconvenient moment the present was for the drains to go wrong. Had his hon. friend ever known drains to go wrong except at an inconvenient moment?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I said it was an inconvenient moment for putting them right.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would modify his statement to suit his hon. friend's interruption. Had his hon. friend ever known drains to require to be put right except at inconvenient times? He never had. It was always at the most inconvenient moment that all the arrangements had to be upset in order that the newest improvements in sanitary science might be adopted. A sum of over £3,000 had been placed on the Estimates to put the drains right. Whether that indicated that the drains were in so insanitary a condition that there was serious risk to life in living at Holyrood was not for him to say, but he did not think it would be right to blame the High Commissioner if, when those responsible considered the time had come for the expenditure of £3,000 on the drains, he began to think that possibly it was not the exact moment at which he would desire to take up his residence in the building on which such extensive and costly repairs were required. Hit would be any consolation to any of his countrymen to know that the last thing the Government, the High Commissioner, or anybody else, in or out of Scotland, desired was to interfere with these great historic traditions, he was prepared to give the most ample assurances on the point. They would not, however, be paying a judicious tribute to Scottish sentiment if they said it was to take the form of insisting on a high officer of State living in a house which he thought was insanitary. He did not think that was a form of devotion, of sacrificing one's life for one's country, which they could exact from the High Commissioner for Scotland. But when these sanitary arrangements had been completed, when this money had been voted and spent, as he had no doubt it would be, to the best advantage, he trusted the present High Commissioner and his successors would be able, as in the past, to carry out their high functions in the ancient residence of the Kings of Scotland.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman, coming rather late into the discussion, had in a magnanimous way cleared the Government of the imputation of desiring to expose the Scottish people to a direct
    18
    insult. But no one had ever supposed that the Government had any such desire. What had been urged was that this was a piece of mismanagement on the part of a Department of the Government, because Lord Leven, whose knowledge of Holyrood as a habitable house was derived from the experience of past years, had doubtless represented the condition of affairs to the Board of Works. No doubt while in residence there he was in constant communication with the Board of Works.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that that was not so.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANthought that in that case Lord Leven must be ruled out of court, if he had not suffered it was difficult to see where his cause was for going to the hotel. He assumed, because a Vote was placed on t the Estimates, that the Board of Works, on the representation of the only man who lived at the Palace, had come to the conclusion that the drainage was imperfect. If so, they had had some months in which to put the matter right, but had deliberately postponed doing so until the time came for the place to be wanted again. That was the point upon which no information had been given, and it was a piece of maladministration which deserved the attention of the Committee.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Prime Minister in excusing Lord Leven for not occupying Holyrood Palace had lost sight of the fact that Levées would continue to be held there. If the Palace was as insanitary as had been represented nothing could be worse than to ask people from all parts of Scotland to attend these Levées, as there would be far more danger with the large crowds that would then gather than if Lord Leven simply resided at Holyrood. Moreover the King was to hold a Levee at the Palace in May, and the same danger would be then present. Since the death of Queen Victoria there had been ample opportunity for putting the place in a perfect sanitary condition. He did not begrudge the expenditure of money, but the building had been in an insanitary condition for years past, and

    19
    ought to have been seen to long ago. A question might also arise with regard to Lord Leven holding his dinners at an hotel. As he understood, excise duties were not levied on spirituous liquors in Royal Palaces. If, however, Lord Leven had his dinners at an hotel, would he have to pay duty on his liquors, being on licensed premises s, or would he have the same privileges in this respect as in the Palace?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid that as far as he knew the High Commissioner had never made any formal complaint at all. As regarded the inaction of the Board of Works he thought it was a little
    hard to blame them, they sent a Surveyor a few months ago to inspect the drains, and they were found not to be as up-to date as they should be; consequently they proposed to spend the sum for this purpose which now appeared in the Estimates.
    MR. JOHN DEWARasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no."]
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 61.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Joyce, Michael

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Asher, Alexander

    Lambert, George

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Bell, Richard

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Brigg, John

    Leng, Sir John

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Levy, Maurice

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Lough, Thomas

    Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

    Burns, John

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

    Caldwell, James

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Wallace, Robert

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

    Mooney, John J.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Crombie, John William

    Norman, Henry

    Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Delany, William

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

    Weir, James Galloway

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Rea, Russell

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Ellis, John Edward

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Eugene Wason and Mr. Black.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Rigg, Richard

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Denny, Colonel

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hn H (Som'rs't E

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Doughty, George

    Horner, Frederick William

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Balcarres, Lord

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lawson, John Grant

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

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Bignold, Arthur

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Bigwood, James

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

    Long, Rt. Hn. Waller (Bristol, S

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

    Flower, Ernest

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Forster, Henry William

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

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

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Garfit, William

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

    Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

    Malcolm, Ian

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Worc

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

    Meysey-Thompeon, Sir H. M.

    Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Penn, John

    Percy, Earl

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Purvis, Robert

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Seely, Charles Hilton, (Lincoln

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid that recently attention had been called to acts of vandalism at Hampton Court Palace, the most serious being in connection with valuable pictures and old tapestries, which had been badly injured. It was rather remarkable that the injury to these tapestries was not discovered by the custodian of that particular part of the building where they were kept, but the damage was pointed out by a visitor. He mentioned this fact to show that the supervision was not what it ought to be. He wished to know if those rooms had been closed to the public in consequence of those acts. He had been told that the custodians at Hampton Court were very old men, and if so, he thought it was time they were pensioned off. It would only be an act of grace to do this, and then they might put younger men in their places who would be able to look after these things. The electric trams were now taking a great many more people to Hampton Court than in former years, and it was a great pity that any of those rooms should be closed to the public. Perhaps his hon. friend would give them some assurance that the rooms would be opened again. He thought that proper steps should be taken to see that these treasures were properly protected, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what steps he proposed to take to ensure that the national treasures there should be protected. At the same time he did not think that the public should be deprived of the pleasure of visiting those rooms.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if some of the works of art had been removed from Hampton Court Palace to other places.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid reference had been made to the necessity for inquiring into the mutilation of the art treasures at Hampton Court. He
    22
    ventured to anticipate that the official report would confirm what he himself could state—namely, that the accounts of the damage done had been grossly exaggerated. He was under the impression that some of the newspapers that had written about vandalism had not taken the trouble to inquire into the facts. It was the practice of some newspapers to endeavour to secure accuracy, but the ordinary sensational newspaper did not trouble itself about that at all. He went to Hampton Court and saw the Clerk of Works, of whom he inquired as to the damage which was reported in the newspapers. That official very kindly took him to the damaged Holbein. He expected to see the picture damaged beyond recognition, but on looking at that fine picture of Henry VIII. he found that the damage had been grossly overstated. There had obviously been the movement of a pencil across the face, and he suggested to the official that it had probably been done by an irate and religious fanatic, or by some irritated female who had certain views on matrimony—on which King Henry VIII. was not the most distinguished authority—probably out of resentment. History only gave him six wives, and so she was determined to revenge herself upon his portrait, but beyond the enamel being scratched there was little damage done to that particular picture. In regard to the tapestry he thought the public should not be held responsible for the damage at all, so far as concerned the piece he saw. He believed it was accidentally caused by one of the attendants putting a stool over the rail in front of it. The damage was very trivial and not irreparable, and it did not warrant the public being excluded from these particular rooms. If Henry VIII, or his portrait, was the cause of indignation on the part of religious fanatics or women with pronounced views on the

    23
    rights of women or matrimony, the proper course was to place the picture where it could not be reached by an umbrella or a pencil. If that were done the public might be safely allowed to go to the rooms which they were now prohibited from entering.
    If there was one agreeable feature about the public galleries and musems it was the singular absence of damage done by the public over a large number of years. H e had the honour of sitting on a Committee, of which the hon. Member for Wigan was chairman, that inquired into matters relating to the public galleries and museums, and they were informed that for forty-two years at one London museum, so far as the public was concerned, there had been absolutely no damage done to any object. He thought, therefore, that to exclude the public would not meet the circumstances of the case. The hon. Member for Devonport had suggested that if damage was inflicted the attendants ought to be held responsible for it. He believed that the attendants had been held responsible for it, but it was impossible to guarantee immunity from damage if there was only one attendant for two rooms. Personally, he thought they had quite a sufficient number of attendants in all the galleries and museums. Unless they were to have an attendant for each room it was impossible to prevent occasional acts of damage by fanatics such as he had described. Although some of the attendants at Hampton Court were old, he believed they were competent and painstaking, and did their duties well. One advantage of having elderly men was that they were not drawn away from their duties by housemaids on the walks, or I attractive young ladies promenading the galleries. They had got beyond that stage. He suggested that during the next month or two the authorities I responsible for the preservation of the pictures and other things should employ one or two women detectives. "Cherchez la femme." He believed a woman was at the bottom of this. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would not shut these rooms any longer to the public. He saw no reason or justification for the removal of paintings or statuary from Hampton Court.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid he was happy to be able to state that the reports as to damage to pictures and tapestry had been largely exaggerated. There was no doubt that some damage had been done, and Lord Windsor took the earliest opportunity of trying to find out who the authors of these dastardly outrages were. The hon. Member for Battersea had suggested that female detectives should be employed to find out who had done these acts. Detectives were placed in Hampton Court Palace, but they were unable to detect who the people were who did them. After that the Office of Works determined to make some little alterations with regard to the warders in the Palace. They established a system of signing on and off among the warders and cleaners so as to fix responsibility. The sale of guide books and other things in the Palace by the warders had been forbidden except at the entrance, and the profit oil such sales, instead of going to one or two of them, was to be applied for the benefit of all. Visitors were not to be allowed to carry umbrellas, parasols, sticks, and other things into the rooms under any pretence whatever. It was perfectly true that three of the rooms had been closed, but only temporarily. It was not intended to close them long. The passages were in the shape of an L, and when there was an enormous crowd in the rooms the warders were unable to see what was taking place in two of the small rooms at the end. Possibly in the course of a short time extra warders might be employed, and those rooms would be opened again to the general public. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the removal of pictures he believed there had been a few pictures removed to Kew and Kensington Palaces. He could assure the Committee that the First Commissioner of Works was fully alive to the necessity of taking the greatest care of the national treasures. He hoped that this was the last they would hear of these outrages.
    MR. KEARLEYasked for a definite assurance that the rooms would be opened to the public. If there were not sufficient warders it would be the easiest thing

    25
    possible to appoint the number required to protect the rooms which were now closed.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Of course the hon. Member knows that I am not in the Office of Works. I shall put his views before Lord Windsor.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that he wished for some explanation of the increase in Section A of this Vote, which increase amounted to 100 per cent., that was from £3,600 to £7,050. Of course he was aware that there was a foot-note showing that the major part of this increase was due to expenditure on Osborne House and gardens, but, curiously enough, there was another foot-note showing that £2,100 of that Vote was for food and medical comforts. How came it that that amount was included under the head "Salaries, Wages, and Allowances?" This Vote should be strictly confined to the expenditure on Royal Palaces, and the item to which he referred should be put in its proper place and for its proper purpose. This led him to emphasise a remark which he had made last year. Why was page 6 left a blank, and all details of information regarding this Vote, which used to appear on that page, withdrawn? Last year he had raised a protest against the practice, but had got no satisfaction. There was no authority from the House to leave out those items on page 6. If that page were filled up, as it used to be previous to two years ago, it would have been possible for any one to tell in a moment what was the real meaning of this increase of 100 per cent. on Item A of this Vote. Then on Item E, "Maintenance and Repairs," there was an increase of £8,020 or, roughly speaking, 25 per cent. He wished to call attention to the very serious manner in which this Vote was increasing year by year. In 1890 it amounted to £49,000, which had before that period seldom varied from year to year. But in 1902 it had risen to £59,000 and there was in addition a Supplementary Vote of no less than £41,000. That, of course, was due to the death of Her late Majesty and the change of occupation of the Royal Palaces. The Committee could perfectly well understand that Supplementary Vote, but it ought not to have been
    26
    accompanied by an annual increase in the cost of the maintenance of the Royal Palaces. Last year the Vote was as he had said, £59,000: this year it was £82,190. Surely such a large increase ought to be explained by the Government before the Committee was asked to agree to this Vote.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the item, "Osborne House and gardens," which figured in the Estimates for the first time for a sum of no less than £20,100, raised a very important question. The Committee would observe that really no explanation was given of this Vote. They were told that it was for "Alterations and Improvements, new lifts, heating, lighting, and water services; and new furniture," but they were not told what these included. He-believed that this Vote was required for the first time in order to adapt Osborne House partly to the use of the new Navy Establishment placed there, and partly to adapt it for the purpose of a Convalescent Hospital for the Army.
    MR. WHITLEY: It is not a Royal Palace at all.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: As the hon. Gentleman said, it was not a Royal Palace, and this item was not even a Civil Service Estimate. It was partly an Army and partly a Navy Estimate; and it was an abuse of the Estimates to put the item on the Civil Service Estimates. If this item was right in this place then the whole of the expenditure on the Hospital Department of the Army, for instance, or of the Education Department of the Navy should also be there. His contention was that this item was most improperly placed under this Vote for Royal Palaces and he could not conceive by whose authority it had been included in the Civil Service Votes. He should like to know what sort of Treasury consent had been asked and obtained for placing this item on this Vote at all. Was it considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Treasury? If the Secretary to the Treasury could not assure him that this expenditure was for the purpose of maintaining Osborne House as a Royal Palace then he thought

    27
    he ought to move to reduce the Vote by the whole £20,100 in order to obtain some proper explanation of it. He begged to move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £20,500, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid that as regarded the point raised by the hon. Member for Halifax in reference to sub-head A—that increase was due entirely to the Salaries and allowances for Osborne House and Gardens; and the same explanation applied to subhead E. Of course there were other minor charges which came into this Vote owing to the change of occupation; but the main charges in items A and E were for expenditure on Osborne House, the alterations to which, as the Committee knew, were to be effected in order to make it fit for Naval and Military purposes.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was altogether satisfactory. Under the sub-heading "Osborne House and Gardens—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—£3,500," they found that of that sum £2,100 was for food and medical comforts. That sum was obviously misplaced altogether. This Vote illustrated what the gift of Osborne House and Grounds cost the nation. Certainly if Osborne House was to be on the Estimates at all it should be under some other heading, so that the Committee might know exactly what was the cost of the buildings or the alterations thereon, and how much was to be voted for the food and medical comforts to convalescent patients. It was an entirely novel thing to put such a charge on such a Vote. He supposed that Osborne House was given for the purpose of a sanatorium for officers of the Army, their wives and families. That might be all very right, but at the same time there was no reason why the expense should be borne by the Office of Works.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid that the Committee ought to have some further reply to the point raised by the hon. Member
    28
    for King's Lynn. At the present moment Osborne House was being used in a dual capacity—first as a Convalescent Home for Officers of the Army and their wives and families, and, secondly, largely as a naval educational college. If these were purposes to which it was to be put, it was very evident that this was not the place in which it should be placed on the Estimates. The Committee ought to have a clear understanding as to what was to be the future character of this Vote. He agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that this Vote should be divided in proper proportions as between the Navy and the Army Vote.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he also wished to congratulate his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury on his appointment; and he hoped his hon. friend would be able to give the Committee some further information on the question which had been raised. The argument of his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn appeared to him to be unassailable; certainly there had been no attempt to answer it. The amount referred to was not Civil Service expenditure at all, and should not appear on the Civil Service Estimates. It was expenditure partly for the Navy, and partly for the Army; and it would be impossible for the Committee to have control over Navy and Army expenditure if the various items were found scattered about among the Civil Service Estimates. He v hoped the Committee would be given an assurance that if this amount appeared through inadvertence on this Vote this year, such a financial error would not be committed another year.
    MR. WHITLEYasked how could a sum of £2,100 for food and medical comforts be put down under the heading of Royal Palaces. When Osborne House was handed over to the nation it ceased to be a Royal Palace, and therefore the sum he mentioned was obviously out of place. He thought the Treasury would be well advised to withdraw the Estimate, and bring it up in an amended form.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid before his hon. friend replied he wished to ask about two other points. There was an item for £500 for furniture for Osborne House which needed explanation. He was informed that a great deal of furniture had been taken away from Osborne House, and removed to other parts of the country. That might explain why the sum of £500 for furniture was now asked for. He wished further to call attention to the note on page 5, which showed that the £20,100 would only be a small portion of the amount the Committee might be asked to vote in future years. They were told in the note that "the balance of £7,400 cannot, however, be treated as a measure of the annual ordinary expenses, as only a part of a year's charge will fall within the period of this year's Vote." Therefore, the Vote next year might be £30,000 or £40,000 or £50,000. That added to the importance of his contention that this was not the proper place for this amount. The matter was important because it falsified the Army and Navy accounts. As regarded the item for furniture, he understood that although it "was the late Queen's wish that no furniture should be removed from Osborne House4 a large amount of furniture had been removed. He definitely asked his hon. friend if that was true; and, if true, what had become of the furniture.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid that the Motion of his hon. friend placed him in a position of considerable difficulty as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee had always insisted as a matter of the first importance that all expenditure on a particular service should be included in the Estimates for that service, and should
    not be included in any other Estimates. It appeared that Osborne House was now devoted to three different objects. In one respect it was a Royal Palace; in another respect it fulfilled certain services for the Army; and in a third certain services for the Navy. It seemed to him that unless it could be shown that the amount in question applied solely to that portion of Osborne House which was still a Royal Palace it had no right to be on the Estimates before the Committee. It was obvious that services for the Army and the Navy should appear on the Army and Navy Estimates; and he thought that his hon. friend would do well to accept the suggestion that the Estimate should be withdrawn for the time being. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury had only been a few days in office and could not be expected to be cognisant of all the details of the Estimates.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid that the sum of £500 was for the repair and replacement of furniture, table requisites, etc. As to why the Vote for Osborne House appeared on the Civil Service Estimates and not on the Army and Navy Estimates, the reason was that the whole management of Osborne House was under the Office of Works. If, however, it were thought desirable, the Vote would not again be included in the Vote for the Royal Palaces.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not regard the explanation as satisfactory.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 62.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Crombie, John William

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Delany, William

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

    Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

    Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

    Asher, Alexander

    Doogan, P. C.

    Joyce, Michael

    Bell, Richard

    Elibank, Master of

    Kearley, Hudson, E.

    Black, Alexander William

    Ellis, John Edward

    Lambert, George

    Brigg, John

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Leng, Sir John

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Burns, John

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Lough, Thomas

    Burt, Thomas

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Caldwell, James

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

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

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

    Norman, Henry

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Weir, James Galloway

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

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Partington, Oswald

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Sullivan, Donal

    Rea, Russell

    Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. J. H. Whitley.

    Rigg, Richard

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Wallace, Robert

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flower, Ernest

    Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Forster, Henry William

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Baird, John George Alexander

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

    Percy, Earl

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pierpoint, Robert

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

    Garfit, William

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

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

    Purvis, Robert

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

    Bignold, Arthur

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

    Bigwood, James

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Boyds, Clement Molyneux

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H F (Middlesex

    Helder, Augustus

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

    Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somrst E

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Spear, John Ward

    Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

    Kimber, Henry

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Stroyan, John

    Charrington, Spencer

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Lawson, John Grant

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Coddington, Sir William

    Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

    Legge, Col Hon. Heneage

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Denny, Colonel

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Macdona, John dimming

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Doughty, George

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Malcolm, Ian

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Bill read a second time, and committed.

    2. £51,400, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he wished to renew under more favourable conditions a protest he had already made to the abolition at Kensington of an open space which
    32
    had long been enjoyed by the people of London. The piece of land to which he referred was a strip which ran down by the side of Kensington Gardens, the trees upon which formed one of the most agreeable avenues in that part of London. When recently going there, however, he found notices up that this ground had been pegged out to various occupants, for building purposes, at the

    33
    instance of the Board of Works, with the result that another of these enjoy-Able open spaces would be for ever lost.
    The CHAIRMAN: To which park does the hon. Member allude?
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he referred to a piece of land which formed a portion of Kensington Gardens.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES,on a point of order, said he believed that this ground did not come under the Office of Works at all, but was under the control of the Office of Woods and Forests.
    The CHAIRMANsaid his impression was that this ground formed no portion of Kensington Gardens, and it was only on the hon. Member's assurance that it did that he allowed the hon. Member to continue. It was no doubt Crown property, but it was managed by the Office of Woods and Forests.
    MR. KEARLEYcomplained of the disgraceful condition of the Birdcage Walk roadway, and the annoyance caused by repairing being undertaken during the session time.
    MR. SKEWES-COXwas understood to say he wished to draw attention to the dangerous condition of the Kingston Gate of Richmond Park, and the necessity of its being widened, as, owing to the height of the walls and the narrowness of the gate and the roads in that neighbourhood, the dangers arising from motor cars using that gate were very great. He also asked that paths should be made to the roads in the park.
    MR. BELLsaid he did not know whether the matter to which he desired to refer came within this Vote, but he desired to ask whether the temporary building at the corner of Trafalgar Square was to be the site of a permanent station of the Waterloo and Baker Street Railway.
    The CHAIRMAN: Trafalgar Square is neither a Royal Park nor pleasure garden.
    MR. BELL: No, Sir, but it is an open space.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid he had seen Lord Windsor with reference to the widening of Kingston Gate and the paths into Richmond Park, and hoped to be able to give the hon. Member an answer in a few days. As to Birdcage Walk, it was true the road was in a very bad state. The reason it was not done at the usual time of the year was that, in consequence of the autumn sittings of Parliament, the Office of Works did not care to undertake it then. It had got so bad, however, that last Tuesday they determined to commence operations, but it was hoped the work would not take longer than a fortnight or three weeks. Further, it was proposed at some future time to lay down wood paving.
    SIR A. HAYTERasked whether the positions of park keepers, and so forth, in the Royal Parks were confined to pensioners.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESdid not think the positions were confined to pensioners, but they were given a preference. He would, however, make inquiries on the subject.
    MR. WHITLEYpointed out that £12,929 were taken under this Vote for Kew Gardens, and Vote 11, under the Board of Agriculture, included another £18,716 for the same place. Last year Kew Gardens were transferred from the Office of Works to the Board of Agriculture; therefore he could not quite understand why both Departments should be asking for these large sums. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain where the line was drawn between the expenditure of the two Departments.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESexplained that the Vote now before the Committee was for the upkeep of the buildings furniture, and so forth, which still remained under the Office of Works.
    MR. WHITLEYasked whether in future the Office of Works was to be the landlord, and the Board of Agriculture the tenant.
    MR. AILYWN FELLOWESsaid the Office of Works would look after the buildings only.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £27,700, to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament Buildings.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSdrew attention to the position allotted to the statue of the late Mr. Bright. The Committee would remember that the original statue of the statesman was placed in the Central Lobby on a pedestal now occupied by the statue of the late Mr. Gladstone. Had the statue of Mr. Bright been at all satisfactory it would doubtless have remained in its original position, but, as the Committee knew, it was little less than a libel on the right hon. Gentleman, and it was subsequently removed. A new statue had been provided——
    THE CHAIRMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's point was that some site should be provided.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Some different site.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that was a matter of discretion resting with the First Commissioner of Works. There was no charge in the Estimate in respect of any piece of ground upon which this statue was placed. Therefore he thought the right hon. Gentleman should raise the point on the salary of the First Commissioner.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid he would do so:
    MR. REGINALD LUCAScalled attention to the ventilating apparatus in the library, which, when the weather was at all cold, made the room extremely draughty. He hoped the matter would be looked into, so that the temperature of the library might be more carefully adjusted.
    MR. CUMMING MACDONAthought the smoking-room for strangers was unworthy of the House of Commons. By a little extra expenditure the room might be made into a very useful convenience to Members who may wish to entertain their friends visiting them at the House. The strangers' smoking room is much too small for the accommodation of the largely-increased number of visitors attending them. All the extra room needed can be had at a small outlay. The three arches can be cut out into the adjoining passage behind them, the cramped-up bar at the entrance can be removed, and a large, commodious bar inserted at the back of the opposite wall. Curtains and carpets, or kamptulican or cocoa-nut matting, would make the place much more comfortable and convenient. At present the room would be a disgrace to a second-class hotel, and certainly is not a fit one for the House of Commons.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDreminded the Committee that some time ago a thorough inquiry was made into the accommodation for Members and strangers in the House of Commons, but, as far as he knew, nothing had been done to carry out the practically unanimous recommendations then made. He asked whether there was any intention of carrying out the proposals of that Committee. An alteration urgently required was the enlargement of the Post Office. It was almost impossible at times for Members to get properly looked after, not because the officials were anything but extremely painstaking and courteous, but because the place was too small. The telegraph office was a perfect disgrace to civilisation. He also asked when the new carpet, which had been passed by the Office of Works, was to be placed in the strangers' smoking room.
    MR. MALCOLMsaid that with reference to the Select Committee on Accommodation in the House of Commons, which had been referred to, he thought they must give the Government its due, and it was a little hard to say that they had done nothing in regard to the carrying out of

    37
    the recommendations contained in the Report of that Committee. Since the present Financial Secretary to the War Office went round the kitchen department and smashed the windows with his umbrella, windows had been put in that would open. He also thought that the telegraph office had been made a great deal better. With regard to the smoking room, he should like to know what the improvements which had been referred to really were, for he noticed the same old draughts and stuffiness in the atmosphere of the smoking room.
    MR. HARWOODsaid he did not think the House had been fairly treated in regard to the increased accommodation which had been promised. They were told that hon. Members were going to get some advantage from the increased accommodation, but he had failed to find it. The Members' reading room was nothing less than a scandal, for it was really nothing more than a passage. In the reading room they were really between the devil and the deep sea, for they must either go to the cold windows or else stand in front of the fire, and the accommodation was simply absurd. They had been told that the House of Commons was the best club in the world, and although he was not acquainted with many clubs he could safely say that the House of Commons was the worst club he knew of. After the promises which had been made he really thought hon. Members would have derived some benefit from the increased accommodation in the House.
    MR. BRIGGsuggested the adoption of similar arrangements in regard to letters to those in force in the American assembly, where it was possible for any member entering the room to see if there was any letter for him in his own pigeonhole. In this way a great amount of the time of hon. Members could be saved. As far as the smoking room was concerned it certainly was a very great inconvenience. He thought they ought to have a smoking room on the same floor as the dining-room.
    DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether the Government intended to appoint the Select Committee on the Ventilation and Sanitary Condition of the House which sat last Session and did not report. As this Committee was carrying on some important investigations in regard to the quality of the air in the House ho should like to know what the result of these investigations was. His hon. friend would remember that when this Vote was under discussion last year complaints were made about the way the House was cleaned, and objection was taken to the divided jurisdiction upon this subject. It appeared that one set of servants were under the Office of Works and another set under the Sergeant-at-Arms; consequently there was occasionally friction and the work was not so well carried out as it might be. He wished to know if his hon. friend proposed to allow all the servants to work under a single authority.
    DR. HUTCHINSONsaid that as a new Member he wished to know whether enough lockers to go round were provided for hon. Members. He came to the House as an absolute stranger and he was told that he must put his name down for a locker. He had done so, but it struck him that he would have to wait one or two Sessions before his turn came round. He thought hon. Members should have proper accommodation provided for them.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid that with regard to the lockers he would communicate with the Office of Works, for he thought that every hon. Member should be provided with a locker. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire he might say that the First Commissioner of Works intended to appoint the Select Committee on Ventilation at an early date. The hon. Member for Clare rather called into question the action of the Office of Works for not having taken notice of the recommendations of the Committee on Accommodation in the House. He thought that was hardly fair, because in last year's Estimates provision was made for carrying out some of the Committee's recommendations. It was true that in regard

    39
    to the larger sums to be expended in connection with the smoking room and the dining-room the Office of Works did not feel justified in asking for the £14,000 or £15,000 which would be required to make the necessary alterations. This year there was £1,000 taken for five of the Peers' Committee Rooms, £250 for improving the ventilation of the lavatories and the smoking room and tea room of the House of Commons, £1,050 for altering the smoke shafts, and £300 for works and alterations of a minor character. He was afraid that he could not promise that the larger works necessary to provide increased accommodation in the dining-room and smoking room would be undertaken at the present time. He felt sure that the First Commissioner would look into the matter and carry out the suggestions of the Committee as far as possible. With regard to the reading room, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton, the same question was brought forward some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, but he was of opinion that the room had been made more suitable than it was before. At the same time he agreed that the accommodation in the reading room was far from what it ought to be, and he hoped to see the day when some alteration would be made not only in the reading room but also in the smoking room.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the hon. Member would tell them something about the Post Office accommodation?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid he thought some alterations had been made in the Post Office and Telegraph Office, but he would bear the point in mind and bring it before the Department.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was sorry to hear that nothing was to be done in regard to the smoking room which was often cramped to suffocation while the House was perhaps nearly empty. There was really nothing like the proper amount of accommodation necessary for the class of hon Members who could not exist without a cigarette or a cigar. The necessity for increased smoking
    40
    room accommodation was far greater now, more especially in regard to those who wished to smoke and write at the same time. There was nothing like enough tables for this purpose. He estimated that nineteen out of twenty hon. Members of the House desired to smoke when they were away from the fascination of the oratory of the House of Commons itself. Probably there were some Members who thought there should be no smoking at all, but they were an infinitesimal minority in the House. He was exceedingly disappointed to hear his hon. friend say that nothing was to be done for the down-trodden smokers. He hoped that the matter would be reconsidered.
    Vote agreed to.
    4. £36,120, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain.
    5. £30,150, to complete the sum for Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.
    6. £37,500, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to ask a question in regard to the cemeteries of British soldiers in the Ionian Islands. He had again and again called attention to the fact that the Government of Greece proposed to give a lease of one of the British cemeteries to a company who proposed to establish a gaming place there. During the British occupation of the Ionian Islands, some distinguished men lived there, some of whom died and were buried there. It seemed to him to be nothing short of an outrage and a scandal to set up a gaming place over the remains of those distinguished and gallant men. He had never received, up to this time, any explicit assurance that the thing would be prevented. That His Majesty's Government could prevent it was most undoubted, because we had the ground of these cemeteries conceded to us by treaty. He wished to receive some assurance that this would be absolutely prevented; otherwise, he would have to move a reduction of the Vote.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid he understood that in Corfu there was an attempt by some people to set up a casino, and the Foreign Office took steps to protest against this proposed desecration. He hoped that, in the course of a short time, they would come to some satisfactory arrangement.
    MR. WHITLEYcalled attention to what appeared to be an anomaly—namely, that while they charged no rates on diplomatic buildings within our shores, they voted money for rates on the self-same class of buildings for our representatives in foreign countries. On a former occasion a promise was given that this matter should be looked into. It was obviously a matter for a little arrangement, possibly by the Foreign Office. They should decline to pay rates on the Embassy in Paris when no rates were paid on the French Embassy in London.
    GENERAL LAURIEsaid they were asked to vote£800 for the maintenance of cemeteries, abroad, but no information was given as to the state they were kept in. He should like some information as to whether the cemeteries were kept in proper order.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid the Office of Works got a report once and sometimes twice a year.
    GENERAL LAURIE: Are they examined and found to be satisfactory?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I believe so.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid the hon. Member had not replied to his question. He only wished the matter to be looked into. He would take the opportunity of raising the question on another Vote. It was stated in a recent debate that while we paid rates on our Embassy in Berlin the German Embassy in London was exempted from rates.
    Vote agreed to.
    7.£339,000, to complete the sum for Revenue Buildings.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished particularly to ascertain whether the Office of Work, was responsible for the sanitary condition of the Post and Telegraph Office buildings, because there had been a good many complaints as to the sanitation of many of them. They did not appear to be under any effective form of inspection such as would be applied to the premises if in private occupation.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid he was almost sure he was correct in saying that the question of the sanitation of these offices came under the Office of Works.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if inspectors looked after the sanitation of the buildings.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Yes, I believe so.
    Vote agreed to.
    8. £222,000, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Great Britain.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to raise a protest against an item in this very large Vote. On page 40 they were asked to vote £1,300 for the Land Registry Office for "Alterations consequent on re-arrangement of staff;" he objected to a continual demand being made for increased money for this office, while Parliament was persistently denied any inquiry into the working of the Land Registration Act. It was distinctly understood when the Act was passed that there would be an opportunity—either by Select Committee or otherwise—for an inquiry as to the success of the operation of the Act; and yet the Committee, which had voted no less a sum than£250,000 for a building, were continually asked, year by year, for some other building, or alteration and maintenance of existing buildings, while they had no report whatever which showed whether the operation of the Act had been successful or not.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member must remember that there was a special Vote for Land Registration, and the question of the policy of the extension or continuance of the Act should be raised on that Vote, and not on this, which was merely for the alteration of the building.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that although he had been waiting all last year to raise this question the Vote to which the Chairman referred was closured. It had therefore appeared to him that it must be proper to discuss the question on the Vote for the alterations on the building.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that he did not think so; and for this reason, that the Minister in charge of this Vote had nothing to do with the policy of the Land Registration Act. No doubt if the hon. Member brought pressure to bear in the right quarter he would get the Land Registration Vote brought on at a time when it could be properly discussed.
    Vote agreed to.
    9. £119,019, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.
    10. £14,204, to complete the sum for Harbours under the Board of Trade.
    11. £17,980, to complete the sum for Peterhead Harbour.

    CLASS II.
    12. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£48,288, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and for Kew Botanic and Pleasure Gardens, including certain Grant-in-Aid."—
    MR. SCHWANNsaid he should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture on having made arrangements for the introduction into this country of live cattle from Argentina. He knew that that would be a great boon to the great body of the working population of this country. It
    44
    was quite evident that an increase in the number of live cattle introduced into this country would tend to lower the price of a food which was necessary for the health and the growth of the working community; but it had two additional advantages. By the arrangement made with the Argentine Government it had been possible for the latter to remove the restrictions which existed as to the export of high-class breeding cattle from this country to the Argentine, and the sale and transport of cattle from the Argentine to this country had improved the commercial relations of the two countries, because the more cattle were exported from the Argentine to Great Britain the more iron and cotton goods would be taken from this country to the Argentine. Every good thing, however, had its evil side, and in bringing cattle from the Argentine to Great Britain it was perfectly obvious that a certain amount of suffering on the part of the cattle must take place. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture would tell the Committee what power he had to prevent unnecessary cruelty in the conduct of the cattle traffic to this country. Some lines, he believed, had steamers expressly built for the trade, and the cattle were protected by shade decks and provided with a constant flow of water. Some of them even had the electric light fitted up. But that protection of the cattle did not exist in all vessels. What means had the right hon. Gentleman for the examination of the ships and the inspection of the cattle on arrival in this country? Then it might also be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the question of the transport of cattle from Irish to British ports. He was given to understand by those who have seen it that there were no means whatever for protecting cattle shipped from Belfast to Fleetwood, and from other Irish to English ports; and they could imagine what must have happened during the last three or four months when the decks of the steamers were swept with seas on account of the strong head winds. He was told that large numbers of the cattle had been found huddled together, many injured and

    45
    others trampled to death. A check should be put to that. He was perfectly willing to see the number of cattle sent over here from Ireland multiplied, but they were bound to take every precaution which humanity could suggest to secure that the sufferings of the cattle should be as small as possible.
    MR. LAMBERTsaid he thought it would be well to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture to the change in the education of the children of the country, especially in the rural districts, in connection with the Education Act of last year. An opportunity now occurred for the right hon. Gentleman to direct agricultural education into grooves which had not been followed for many years past. There was no doubt that existing agricultural education was in an extremely unsatisfactory condition. They had a hard and fast Code which applied to town and country alike. They should differentiate education in the rural villages and in the towns. In Devonshire, which he represented, a great deal of fruit was grown, and he should like to see taught in the schools fruit-growing, the care of fruit trees, and how to get rid of the insects which injured the fruit trees. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would do a great service to agriculture if he would direct the attention of the County Councils, who had now the duty of carrying out the Education Act, into the groove he had suggested. He had been reading only a few days ago the extremely interesting work by Mr. Rider Haggard on "Rural England," in which that author quoted the opinion of a reverend gentleman in Devonshire on this subject. "There was nothing" it was said, "taught in a village school which would impress on a child that agriculture, horticulture, orchard and fruit culture are full of interest and delight, and both require, and are worthy of, the best work of their heads and hands." He was certain that the right hon. Gentleman could do something to make the village school more attractive to those living in the villages, and the means of imparting knowledge which would be of use to the children in after life; and if he did so it
    46
    would redound to his lasting credit. The children were taught geography three hours a week, but nothing of how to erect a stack or to feed cattle. It was often said that an agricultural labourer was a very unskilled person, but he should like to traverse that statement absolutely, because anyone without a considerable amount of past experience who tried to do the work of an agricultural labourer would find it difficult. Even the putting up a fence, or ploughing and sowing, required a good deal of technical skill and knowledge, and some of that knowledge might be imparted in the night-schools which he hoped would be established all over the country districts.
    This was an important subject, because the rural population was crowding into the towns, where men were tramping about the streets because they could not get work, while in the country there was a scarcity of labour. He attached a great deal of importance to giving children a real practical education in the village schools, rather than an education such as they would get in London or any other large city. With reference to wages, he read during the Woolwich contest that wages at Woolwich were about 21s. per week, and that rents were 8s. a week. If that were true, it seemed to him that the agricultural labourer was much better paid than a Woolwich labourer who had to pay 8s. a week rent; and he could not understand why such a number of people in the rural districts crowded into the towns. The Technical Education Committees all desired to do something to improve agricultural education, but they did not know how to go about it. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should form some body in his Department which would send out to County Councils what might well be termed an agricultural code of education. The County Councils wanted to do this work, but they did not know how to do it. The right hon. Gentleman could carry out the ideas of the County Councils in this matter, which he was certain had his sympathy. The right hon. Gentleman had also been very sympathetic on the question of railway rates; but said that farmers indulged in a great deal of general

    47
    grumbling. He himself agreed with that; but it was difficult for them to do anything else, when they saw railway rates unfairly differentiated between themselves and their foreign competitors. Railway rates were full of difficulties to an ordinary man.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that is a matter which is connected with the administration of the Board of Agriculture. Railway rates are connected with the Board of Trade.
    MR. LAMBERTsaid he only wished to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should appoint a competent staff in his Department to examine into the question of railway rates. It was impossible for an individual farmer to examine railway rates, as they were very complicated and full of details; and no man who was not skilled in the matter of railway charges would be able to ascertain exactly whether his charges were accurate or not. In Ireland, rich men came forward patriotically to carry out great transport ideas; but in England they had no rich men, or else they were not patriotic. He also thought that the Treasury ought to devote more money to the Agricultural Department. At present, the Department was the most poverty-stricken in the world, considering the large industry it had to direct and advise. Mr. W. P. Reeves, Agent-General for New Zealand, some time ago compiled a table showing the amount spent on agricultural advice in various countries in the world. In New Zealand the amount was 2s. per head, in Queensland, 1s. 11d., in France, 11d., in Denmark, which was a very severe competitor with the British agriculturist, 1s. 6d., whereas, in the United Kingdom only ½d. per head was spent. He therefore, thought that more money should be given to the Agricultural Department to carry out necessary work such as he had suggested. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said that it was to gain markets that they made wars, spent millions of money, and the life blood of the bravest of the brave. He did not want that; but he thought, considering they had a very large home market, that, instead of looking so much to foreign markets, they should try and preserve it for the British agriculturist.
    48
    If the British farmer had to meet foreign competition, he should be put in a position to meet it; and one of the chief remedies for foreign competition was better and more practical education. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make representations to the Treasury in order to get more money for a purpose which was very vital to the agricultural industry.
    He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. He understood that swine fever at the present time showed a very large decrease. He congratulated the Department on that; but he wished to know if there was going to be any finality as regarded the restrictions for suppressing swine fever. Had the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to when they might anticipate that swine fever would be stamped out altogether? That would be a very great boon, if it could be achieved. He thought also that the right hon. Gentleman might supply information more frequently with reference to the course of agricultural events in foreign countries. He read in The Economist a few days ago that the Argentine herds had increased only about 6 per cent. during the last three years, whereas, the normal increase was from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. That showed that from the Argentine, at all events, they would not get so much competition in the near future as might have been expected. He read also that cattle in America showed a decrease of six millions. These were things about which the Agricultural Board ought to be able to supply information. Then, there was the question of the drought in Australia. How was that going to affect the price of wool and mutton? In agriculture they could not change the system of production as quickly as it could be changed in other industries, and all these matters were of importance. He also wished to know what prospect there was of sending stock to South Africa. Two years ago, they were told that there were great latent possibilities in sending British stock to improve the native breeds in South Africa. He himself was rather dubious as to whether there would be a market for that class of stock; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some information on the matter.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he wished to bring one or two points to the attention of his right hon. friend. One was the question of putting the law into force with reference to glanders. At present, no notification of glanders was necessary, and a farmer was able to put a horse suffering from glanders into a sale with other horses. He was informed some years ago that the law was strong enough to cope with such outrages; and he hoped it would be enforced. Then as to drinking troughs, they were not under the control of the local authority, and were frequently insanitary, and even when carmen were provided with buckets they were compelled to dip them into the troughs because there were no taps. He desired to identify himself with what the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had said on the question of railway rates; and he would welcome a Department of the Board of Agriculture that would inform farmers what rates they ought to pay. The railway companies were at present infringing Acts of Parliament by imposing rates which they were not empowered to impose. By Act of Parliament, the maximum price of manures from Petersfield to Nine Elms was 9s., but the railway company charged 12s. 6d. The maximum charge for potatoes from Three Bridges was 3s. 8d., but the railway company charged 10s. 10d.
    THE CHAIRMAN: These matters are not under the control of the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture has no right to interfere with railway companies in respect of rates. It is a matter for the law if the railway companies are charging illegal rates.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he appreciated that point, and would only urge on his right hon. friend to have a Department under his control where farmers could be informed what rates they ought to pay. At present, they were absolutely ignorant on the matter, in consequence of the Board of Agriculture not supplying them with the information with which it ought to have supplied them. He was sure his right hon. friend had great sympathy with farmers in the
    50
    matter, and that he intended to do his best to remedy the evil. The result of all these preferential rates on food supplies amounted to no less than a bounty to foreigners of 5s. a ton on grain, and of from 10s. to 30s. a ton in regard to fruit and other produce. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture would have in his office in the future a Department for remedying all these defects.
    MR. SPEARsaid everybody appreciated the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to protect our herds from foreign disease, and recognised that he had done well in that direction, but there were other matters with regard to which the people were not so satisfied. They felt aggrieved that foreign produce was carried cheaper than English produce, and thought that something might be done to alleviate that grievance. The argument of the railway companies that they were enabled to take foreign produce cheaper because of the bulk they carried was a sound one, but could not the right hon. Gentleman make some arrangement with the railway companies whereby small consignments, if accumulated in bulk, should be charged the rates which were charged for foreign produce? Another matter to which he wished to draw attention—and he admitted the difficulty of dealing with it—was that the variety of weights and measures by which produce was sold resulted in great confusion and prevented a free interchange of these commodities. He urged the desirability of evolving a uniform system of weights and measures, which would greatly relieve the farmers of the difficulties under which they now suffered. They should also have greater facilities for analysing manures and feeding stuffs, and he suggested that the Board of Agriculture should be able to supply a simpler process by which the farmer could be assured as to whether the goods he bought were of money value or not. He further suggested the desirability of inspecting stallions and preventing the use of diseased or unsound animals. He was of opinion that all stallions used for stud purposes should have a certificate of soundness and facilities should be given for breeding

    51
    good sound horses such as they heard were required for the Army. Agriculturists did not want to be pampered, but they wanted facilities given to them to carry on their industry, not only for the benefit of themselves and the rural community but in the interest of the community at large and for the promotion of the food supply and the commonwealth of the country.
    MR. MANSFIELDsaid he moved the Amendment standing in his name, not because he was not in agreement with the hon. Member who had just sat down, but because, although the farmers were delighted with the way the President of the Board travelled the country and inquired into their grievances, they did not seem to appreciate that in the Board of Agriculture they had a live Department. As compared with what similar Departments abroad did, we were leagues behind. And the farmers could not help remembering that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes made promises which he did not carry out. With regard to sheep-worrying, for instance, in February of last year the President stated he was going to deal with the question; in March he was considering it; in May he hoped to deal with it before the session came to an end. And it was not dealt with yet. Then there was the question of breeding horses for the Army. On April 10th last year the right hon. Gentleman was most eager to afford farmers every opportunity of supplying the demands of the War Office; on the 17th of the same month he was in communication with the War Office on the subject; on May 27th he thought, although the kind of horses wanted for the Army was not the kind to pay a farmer to breed, still the first opportunity ought to be given to the farmers of the United Kingdom; two months after the President stated that a circular would shortly be issued giving every information, and in the following December, on being pressed to give the information promised, the right hon. Gentleman stated that 2,500 horses were required, of which 1,000 would come from Ireland and the remainder from the United Kingdom, but he thought this matter had lost a great deal of its interest for
    52
    the British farmer. Why did this matter lose its interest? It suddenly lost its interest when they pressed the right hon. Gentleman to perform his promise. The farmers felt they had not been treated fairly in the matter; they had had a definite promise that a circular should be issued, which it was true might not have altered the horse-breeding arrangements of this country, but which might have enabled many a man who had a horse suitable for the Army to save his horse and get a better price for it. The horse breeders of this country should have such help given to them as was given by Continental Governments to their subjects, and they certainly felt that the Board of Agriculture should do something in order to insure that there should be some inspection of stallions; and the farmers felt that some help should be given to them in order that they might get their entire horses cheaper. In reference to preferential rates on railways the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the farmers had a grievance, and in Committee of Supply, last year, promised to use his influence with the Board of Trade in the matter. How far had the influence of the right hon. Gentleman furthered the question? The Department existed for the help of the farmers; but it had not helped them to obtain justice from the railway companies. The question was so large that it was hopeless to attempt to deal with it unless the Board of Agriculture took the matter up and obtained an inquiry: the efforts of individual farmers or associations were almost useless He desired to ask also whether the President would take steps to trace the source of the new disease "phoma," which had arisen in connection with turnips in Lincolnshire, and place the result of his researches at the service of farmers, so that they could fight the disease. He hoped also that he would use his influence with the Local Government Board so that more houses might be provided in rural districts and the population be kept upon the land. In order to secure a reply he begged to move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by£100, in

    53
    respect of the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture."—(Mr. Mansfield.)
    MR. LLOYD MORGANasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was now in a position to state the general outlines of the scheme he had frequently referred to for bringing the farmers in various parts of the country into closer contact with the Board of Agriculture. The proposal was a very important one and, if carried out in a practical way, might do much good. He further asked when it was proposed to revoke the muzzling order in Carmarthenshire. The order had been revoked in the larger portion of the county, but it was still in force in certain petty sessional divisions, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say the time was near at hand when the order would be entirely removed. He entirely agreed with the remarks which had been made as to the injury suffered by farmers from unsound horses travelling the country. The injury arose from the fact that so many farmers had no way of finding out whether or not the horses were unsound, and if the right hon. Gentleman would do something in the direction which had been suggested he would confer on the farmers a substantial benefit.
    MR. CHANNINGcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the satisfactory results of the administration of the Board in stamping out foot-and-mouth disease and causing a diminution in swine fever. He wished to congratulate him still more on the suggestive and useful speeches which he had addressed to large bodies of agriculturists all over the country. The advantage to agriculturists of those meetings could hardly be exaggerated. Those speeches seemed to point to a new era of usefulness on the part of the Board of Agriculture, and to indicate lines of work which that Department had not hitherto attempted. No doubt, in the hints he had thrown out, the right hon. Gentleman had had in view the remarkable success of the work done by the organisation of societies stimulated
    54
    and encouraged by the State which in twenty or thirty years had made Denmark one of the most successful agricultural countries in the world. Many agriculturists were stubbornly opposed to those ideas of co-operation which had effected such wonders in Ireland, and which, if the right hon. Gentleman had his way, would probably work similar results in England. But what he did hope was that the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that he was prepared to throw the ideas he had sketched out into a practical form and to lay before the Treasury a scheme for the wider application of the administrative powers of the Board in the direction of stimulating and organising the different branches of agriculture. With regard to the depopulation of the rural districts, the whole of that question really depended on making agriculture profitable in the rural districts to the smaller agriculturists. That was the real key of the position. People in this country only needed to go to Denmark to see how that had been done largely by State administration stimulating the action of agricultural societies. In this country they had great agricultural societies doing splendid work in certain directions, but not in the special direction in which such wonderful work had been done in Denmark. The record laid before the recent French Exhibition by the Danish section, in which it was indicated how the Danes had obtained control of the egg market in England, showed that 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 eggs were now being sent to this country, and this was largely due to the thorough organisation of the egg industry by the societies so as to guarantee quality and uniformity. The members of these societies were fined if they did not accurately date every egg before they were collected and sorted. These were the ways in which agriculture had been made a success and a lucrative occupation in Denmark. It was the same in regard to butter and poultry and other products. If in this country things were carried out as in Denmark, he ventured to say that they would not find the failure of the smaller agriculturists dwelt upon so often. He did not wish to go into this question further than to assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were

    55
    Members on the Opposition as well as the Government Benches who would support the general ideas he had been laying before the country in his speeches, and they welcomed most heartily the efforts he was making to bring about a profitable reorganisation of the different branches of agriculture in this country—a reorganisation which had been so successfully carried out by Mr. Horace Plunkett in Ireland, and which had been such a conspicuous success in Denmark.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that most agricultural Members would agree with his hon. friend who had just sat down in his generous appreciation of the zeal and energy shown by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture since he took office. They only regretted that the resources of his Department were inadequate to fulfil all his aspirations. But no doubt a great deal might be done even by small resources, and the scheme the right hon. Gentleman had foreshadowed for bringing into closer contact the large organised bodies of farmers in different parts of the country might be productive of great good. They must not, however, expect too much from the Government Department connected with agriculture, because he did not think it was possible to organise the agricultural interests of this country like it was done in comparatively small countries such as Denmark and Ireland. He hoped the agriculturist would put self-help first, and State-help second. There was, however, a great deal which an Agricultural Department could do, and he wished to say a few words upon one branch which he knew his right hon. friend was desirous of improving, namely, agricultural education. They all knew what a small sum of money was devoted to that object by this country as compared with the amount provided by the Governments of other countries. No doubt his right hon. friend's answer would be much the same as that given by his predecessors in office, namely, that there were very large sums at the disposal of the local authorities which could, if necessary, be devoted to agricultural education. That was perfectly true, and no doubt the local bodies would do
    56
    a great deal under the new system. Nevertheless, there were subjects under the head of experiment and research which could often be better dealt with by a central Government Department than by a large number of local bodies acting without any co-operation between themselves. He did not think his right hon. friend could do better than pursue the course he had taken up in regard to the cider-making industry, for by this means he brought the different authorities into co-operation, thus preventing them wasting their resources and efforts by overlapping each other in their experimental work. There was another direction in which he hoped his right hon. friend would also work, and that was co-operating with the Board of Education. Last year he got a Joint Committee appointed, which drew up an excellent syllabus of scientific agriculture. He hoped there would be a standing Joint Committee of the two Boards to consider all these educational topics. A great deal of this work ought to be directed by agricultural experts as well as educationists, and until the Board of Education contained an agricultural element practically acquainted with the needs of agriculture, he thought it was necessary for the Board of Agriculture to supply that deficiency, and help them to get a more practical and useful scheme of agricultural education.
    MR. BRIGGemphasised the complaint which had been made on behalf of scientific men in the country that the scientific research carried on by the Agricultural Department was not sufficient for the needs of a country like England. He desired to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it was the case that a large quantity of the plates, figures, and other information which he was now in the habit of giving to the farmers of this country were derived mainly from German and American sources, and not from English sources. If so, it was not befitting the dignity of this country. This country ought to be able to employ its own experts and make it worth their while, for they should not be entirely dependent upon outsiders for information which was so vital to the agricultural interests of this country.
    DR. HUTCHINSONsaid the reason he rose to discuss this question was that he thought the time had now come when the farmers had had enough talking to, and it was time something should be really done for them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had quite decided and found out for himself that something must be done, and so he had started this advisory committee, which was going to put him in touch with the various agricultural societies in the different counties of the country. These advisory committees he was going to have formed from the various farmers' clubs and associations, and he was going to have the power of co-opting from them certain members. He thought that in order to get more into touch with the agriculturists they ought to go to the County Councils and ask them to form committees, which they might call Agricultural Committees, and they should have the power of co-opting members in the same way as the Education Committees did at the present time. In this way they would get a committee to watch over every county of this country, and they would deal with all the local questions which came up, and so a great deal of time would be saved, and a lot of good, practical work would be done. This question of co-operation should be gone into, for in certain counties co-operation would be very useful, whilst in others it would be impossible. In such matters as the buying of food stuffs, manure, and seeds, they might be obtained wholesale and sold at reduced prices to the farmer, They ought to publish a small gazette every week or every fortnight, so that the farmers would know what was going on. In this way the farmers would know where to buy or where to sell. An employer who wanted a man would then be able to get him through this gazette. This would be doing something practical, and would be of great service to the farmer, and give him a little bit of hope for the future. At the present time the tenant farmer was thinking of nothing but the Irish Land Bill, but they would not get a Land Bill in this country just yet, and something would have to be done for the English farmers before they were able to extend the Irish Land Bill to England. He took this opportunity of bringing his scheme before the right hon. Gentleman who had shown so much enthusiasm in the agriculture of this country.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplated taking any step to carry out the proposals contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee which he appointed upon Afforestation. The second question he wished to ask related to the subject of restrictions in regard to swine fever. Those restrictions pressed somewhat hardly upon the farmer, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would do all in his power to make them as light as possible. In order to move pigs within the area to which the restriction applied, it was necessary to go to the superintendent of the district to get an order to do so. Farmers had complained to him that sometimes they had to go twelve miles to get an order to move swine a few hundred yards Would it not be possible to allow a farmer to make a declaration before the nearest magistrate, to send it by post to the superintendent, and to receive the order by post from him?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston)said the discussion had ranged over a wide field not limited to his own Department; but he accepted the view that the influence of the Board of Agriculture ought so far as possible to be brought to bear on other Departments in matters which connected those Departments even indirectly with agricultural interests. The old practice of regarding different Departments as if they were so many foreign countries, and of conducting business with them by an enormous amount of correspondence, which wasted the time of the officials and caused expense to the Stationery Department, ought to cease; and he would endeavour as far as possible to promote by verbal communication harmonious working between Departments for the common cause. He would not omit the Treasury. He fully agreed with what had been said as to the somewhat starved condition of the Board of Agriculture. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that a great deal was being done in other countries on behalf of agriculturists who were keen competitors with agriculturists here, to whom no similar service could be

    59
    rendered by the Board of Agriculture in this country. He did not limit himself to foreign or colonial countries, but might refer to Ireland itself. The British agriculturist had the same claim upon the State to assist the prosperity of his particular industry as had the Irish farmer. He would constantly, as occasion arose, press strongly upon the Treasury the necessity of seeing that the Board of Agriculture in Great Britain was put upon such a financial footing as to enable it to do more justice to the British farmers, who were competing with men in foreign countries and in the colonies whose Boards of Agriculture rendered them a vast amount of assistance.
    He would deal with the questions which had been addressed to him seriatim. He thanked the hon. Member for North Manchester for what he said with regard to his action in opening the ports to Argentine cattle. The long delay in opening the ports to Argentine cattle had been justified by the result. He was quite sure that it was in the interests of the consumer as much as those of the farmer, considering what a large proportion of the food supply of this country was home grown. He thought it was something like 60 per cent. He was glad to say that the Argentine Government had now adopted our own regulations, and a great trade would be put on a steady, permanent basis. The trade between the Argentine and this country was going to be, perhaps, the most lasting trade in live cattle. Owing to the profitable use that could be made of the offal in Chicago, it paid the Americans better to send dead meat than to send live stock to this country. But the live cattle trade with the Argentine would always be a large one. In view of the length of the voyage—about sixty days—he was bound to take every precaution to see that this trade was carried on under humane conditions. He was afraid that in a good many tramp ships the trade was not carried on in as humane a manner as it ought to be, and his full statutory powers would be exercised religiously and firmly with a view to ensuring that the animals experienced no undue suffering during their long voyage.
    60
    With regard to the Irish cattle trade, he must say that what the hon. Member had mentioned was somewhat new to him. He should rather think that the hon. Member had exaggerated the case, but if he would supply details as to special ships or cargoes he would take care that full inquiry was made. As to agricultural education, although funds were limited, he recognised that as new agricultural colleges arose it would be the interest of the Department to see that they should be more or less assisted out of the public funds. These colleges were doing a great work. There was an additional advantage in being able to make grants to these colleges, in so far as they were connected with County Councils, because opportunity was given for striking bargains with the County Councils as to their use of their local taxation money for the purposes of agricultural education. Without co-operation between the Board of Agriculture and the County Councils the latter had a tendency to repeat experiments already tried, and money was sometimes wasted. But the County Councils had shown great willingness to co-operate with the Board of Agriculture, with the result that information as to what was being done elsewhere was available, co-ordination was promoted, and the local taxation money was put to its most advantageous use. With regard to elementary education in the village schools, he was entirely in accord with what the hon. Member for Devonshire had said, though there again his hands were somewhat tied. The Joint Committee of the Boards of Agriculture and of Education ought to be made permanent. He was quite sure that a good deal might then be done to put agricultural education in the elementary schools on a much more sound basis than hitherto. The County Councils would now have a great opportunity, because they could create a new Code and adapt education to local requirements. But the Code, under the hands of his right hon. friend the late Vice-President of the Council, was by no means so inelastic as many were inclined to suppose. A great deal had been done under it by certain managers. It was quite possible to give, as nature study, in the elementary schools a great deal of the teaching desired by

    61
    the hon. Member. Where such teaching was wanting it was the fault not so much of the Code as of the managers themselves, who were either not sufficiently aware of the elastic nature of the new Code, or did not take sufficient interest in the subject. He should lose no opportunity to point out to the County Councils that the Code as it stood afforded facilities for giving the children in rural schools a more practical training—a training more suitable to their circumstances—than they had received in the past, and for differentiating the teaching in the village schools from that in the town schools. The two things were quite different, and he hoped under the new Act and the new powers given to the County Councils they would find a great improvement in rural education in the future.
    In regard to railway rates he was on more dangerous ground. He had already, perhaps, stretched the powers of his Department in regard to this question as far as it was right and reasonable. He was quite ready to admit that the Board of Trade had more to do with railway rates than the Board of Agriculture; but at the same time he was the adviser and friend of the farmers, and he was anxious to assist them and prevent undue railway charges being levied upon them. An hon. Member had stated that the staff of the Department of the Minister of Agriculture should be fully competent to deal with this question of railway rates. Such a staff had already been formed consisting of very able men whose time was largely given to this subject; and he appealed to County Councils, and individual farmers not to hesitate in bringing forward any cases of undue railway charges to the notice of the Board of Agriculture. If that were done the matter would at once be inquired into. It had already been done in some parts of the country, in Scotland and Yorkshire, and he only wished that other parts of the country would do the same. It was only on facts that he could take action, but if nobody complained to him he could not take action. Certain alleged grievances had been mentioned to the Committee by an hon. Member, but if that Gentleman would bring these definitely before the Board
    62
    of Agriculture they would be inquired into. If anybody complained that he was slow in moving, he could only reply that he was not furnished by the farmers with the necessary information. If he found any case in which a railway was overcharging farmers for the carriage of agricultural produce, it would be his duty to see that that was put a stop to, and also that restitution was made by the railway companies for overcharges in the past. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member who spoke of the great importance of encouraging our home markets. He did not think the residents in towns sufficiently recognised that while no doubt it was a good thing to have large foreign colonial markets, it was, after all, to the support of the home markets that the dwindling rural population looked for their maintenance.
    He was glad to say that the Board of Agriculture had been reasonably successful in their fight against disease. The-foot-and-mouth disease had been stamped out, and there had been a considerable diminution in swine fever. A right hon. Member had asked him if he could tell how long it would be before that disease was stamped out altogether. That was a question extremely difficult for him to answer, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he should continue to use vigorously all the powers of the Department in stamping it out. He was bound to say that he congratulated himself on the willingness and readiness with which the farmers throughout the country had, at great inconvenience to themselves, borne the restrictions and regulations, which were of benefit to themselves in the end, and a great safeguard to the rest of the country. He was in communication with the Board of Agriculture in Ireland as to one difficulty which had arisen in regard to swine fever. It was very often the case that when swine fever had been stamped out in the west coast of England, it was re-introduced by animals imported from Ireland. It was not fair to English farmers that that should be the case, and he was in communication with the Board of Agriculture in Ireland to see whether the regulations could not be made as stringent in Ireland as in this country. He was sure that he would be supported in taking every step that

    63
    was possible in the battle he was waging against swine fever and the importation of disease either from Ireland or any other country. He had been asked what opportunities there were for the exportation of stock to South Africa. At the present moment the Department had a Commissioner in South Africa inquiring what opportunities there might be for trade between this country and South Africa in stock. He was afraid, however, that for some time to come the great work of re stocking the farms in South Africa would be with much inferior cattle than we could send out from this to that country; but when that process was at an end the time would come for the use of an improved breed of stock, and he should then give to British farmers the fullest information of the opportunities which existed for the exportation of pedigree stock to South Africa. His hon. friend the Member for Devonshire had raised a comparatively new question, viz., the uniformity of weights and measures throughout the country. He agreed with the hon. Member as to the necessity of some change. In these days when farmers did not trust so much to mere local markets, but to markets very often at a very great distance, the necessity for a more uniform system of weights and measures was constantly felt. Local weights and measures might have had their advantage in the old days, but now that trade had vastly extended farmers were heavily handicapped by the great variety of weights and measures. Unfortunately this was one of the matters on which he did not think the Government ought to go too far ahead of public opinion. Farmers would require to be educated on the subject. He recollected that a Bill dealing with the subject was introduced six or seven years ago, but so strong was the feeling amongst farmers throughout the country against any enforced uniformity of weights and measures, that the Bill was defeated by a very large majority. He was sure that hon. Members who had influence with farmers would do a good work in putting the agricultural industry throughout the country on a sound footing if they used that influence to induce farmers to realise the importance and the benefit to
    64
    themselves of abolishing the interminable system of local weights and measures.
    The hon. Member had also raised the question of the analysis of feeding stuffs, and questioned whether the Act had been carried out as fully as those who introduced it thought would be the case. That was due to the fact that small farmers did not care to pay the fees for the analysis of their small purchases. Moreover, these small farmers were more or less under the influence of the merchants, who naturally did not like their names to be brought forward in connection with Acts of Parliament, or to disclose the names of manufacturers. He had put himself in communication with several County Councils, Devonshire amongst the others, on the subject, and it had been arranged that in future they would act through the chief constable and inspectors of police, who would take the samples, so that the small farmers would have nothing to pay for the analysis, and no name would be disclosed. By that means the Act would be a great deal more efficiently worked. With respect to unsound stallions he was not at all sure that it would be necessary to have legislation to increase the powers of the Department on this subject. He doubted even whether public opinion would support such legislation. Many farmers did not know whether the horses were sound or not; very often they were inclined to take the cheapest and nearest. He thought that the Board of Agriculture could, without legislation, carry out a scheme by which guarantees would be issued that such and such stallions were sound. The hon. Member said that he had given a promise to introduce a Bill on the subject of sheep worrying. He had given a pledge to farmers in Scotland to introduce such legislation; but on reconsideration he had come to the conclusion that instead of confining the measure to Scotland, it should deal with the whole of Great Britain. He had now such a Bill ready, and he hoped to be able to introduce it in the course of the next two or three days. As to the question of remounts, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his interest in the matter had somewhat, abated. That was not the case by any means, because he felt as strongly as

    65
    ever that by far the greater proportion of horses that might be bought for the Army ought to be bought from farmers in our own country. They ought to have the first chance in this matter. But he confessed that the only abatement in his interest in the matter had been on account of the small number of horses which he found the War Office required. Having regard to the large number of our cavalry, he did suppose that the number of horses required by the War office would be considerably greater than it was; but it was only about 1,500 a year, and that was not a great matter to the farmers one way or the other. However, he perfectly agreed with the hon. Gentleman that even if the number were only 1,500, the farmers ought to have every information on the subject. A leaflet was now being prepared, giving the latest information which he had received from the War Office, and that leaflet would be issued without delay. At the same time, he wanted to show that the farmers should not place too great expectations on the matter; and he wished to bring out clearly the fact that the number of horses required was limited to 1,500.
    Then, with reference to the new disease which had broken out in Lincolnshire, the hon. Gentleman asked him if it had been brought to the notice of the technical experts in his Department. No doubt it had; but it had not been brought personally before him. He would, however, see that the matter was inquired into, because it was undoubtedly the duty of his Department, when a disease of that kind broke out, to take every step to find out what its history was, and what were the best means of coping with it. If inspectors had not been sent down to deal with the matter already, he could promise the hon. Gentleman that that course would be taken at once, and that no time would be lost in trying to find a remedy for what the hon. Gentleman represented to be a very serious disease. Then, as to the question of afforestation, he was asked how far he was prepared to carry out there commendations of the Departmental Committee which he appointed a year or eighteen months ago. As the hon.
    66
    Gentleman was aware, the report only of that Committee had yet been published. He had not yet received the evidence, and therefore it would be premature for him to express an opinion upon the matter. But he was glad to say that primâ facie, so far as he had read the report, and so far as he could form an opinion without the evidence, there were, at any rate, certain recommendations which he thought he could say offhand would be given effect to. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests were perfectly willing to set apart a certain district in the Forest of Dean for an experimental demonstration area as was suggested by the Committee; and he had no doubt that when he read the evidence there would be other portions of the report to which also he should be able to give effect, because he felt that the question of afforestation was one of serious interest to this country. When he saw the price of timber going up all over the world, and when he saw, in these days of depressed agriculture, large districts which would pay better under timber than under any other form of agriculture, he thought afforestation was a matter of very great importance, not only in Great Britain but, if he might say so, also in Ireland. He should do his utmost to impress on the Treasury the necessity of carrying out, as far as they might be supported by the evidence, the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, which he believed had rendered a great public service, and they were all very much indebted to the hon. Gentleman who presided over it.
    With regard to the muzzling order in Carmarthenshire, he hoped that when six months had elapsed from the last proved case of rabies, he would be able to modify, or perhaps withdraw, the regulations altogether. But the hon. Gentleman should recollect that while rabies had been stamped out altogether in other parts of the United Kingdom, it had, for some mysterious reason, lingered in Carmarthenshire longer than anywhere else. During the last twelve months there had been undoubted cases of rabies in that part of the country. He thought it was well, when they had stamped out the disease everywhere else, and when they had limited it to a small area, that they should not be in

    67
    too great a hurry to remove the restrictions, seeing that it was the last part where rabies lingered in the whole country. They wanted to make the regulations effective, but, at the same time, they wanted them to work with as little friction as possible, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would do him the justice of saying that that had always been the aim of the Department. As regarded the information supplied to farmers, a great deal of it was no doubt obtained from foreign countries, but they had also obtained a great deal of information from British sources. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish the Department to depend solely on British sources of information, and he himself felt that they ought to pick the brains of their neighbours as well as the brains of their own countrymen. One of the things he had brought about at the Board of Agriculture was that they should constantly and steadily study more than before, all the sources of information supplied by foreign countries. The information issued by Canada and the United States was of an extremely important character, and highly organised departments of agriculture in other countries published information which it would be folly for them to neglect. The Intelligence Department of the Board of Agriculture were now using every means to keep fully abreast of the information supplied by foreign countries, and to circulate it as far as possible among the farmers. He felt strongly that there was no use in merely getting the information if it was not circulated among those whom it most concerned. In many cases the farmers who really most needed information were the small and isolated men; and he felt that no stone ought to be left unturned to bring before them every kind of information which would be of advantage to them in their industry. There was great difficulty often in bringing information of this kind directly under their notice: but he was now establishing a system of distribution of leaflets, especially among the smaller and more isolated men, which it was believed would be of advantage to them as well as to the farmers of the country generally.
    MR. MANSFIELDsaid that in view of the sympathetic and comprehensive reply of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£381,333, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for stationery, printing, paper, binding, and printed books for the public service; to pay the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to call attention to the manner in which the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons had been carried out in connection with contracts given out by the Stationery Department. The debates on the subject had established the fact that the rate of wages to be paid should be the rate of wages obtaining in the particular district concerned. If the contract were given in London, then the rate of wages should be the rate current in London, the case to which he wished to draw attention was that of Messrs. Wyman, who, having works outside London, at Reading, could work there at a lower rate of wages than that which was paid in London, and were thus enabled to compete unfairly with firms who were London firms in the proper sense of the word, and who had no works outside. He did not know whether it was in the recollection of the Committee, but this was a matter which was fully gone into last year, and the then Secretary to the Treasury promised that the matter should be investigated, and that if the complaint was well founded, justice should be done. He had brought forward the matter again, because he had been assured that the great evil of which complaint had been made had not been redressed, and therefore, without further remark, he would move to reduce the Vote by£100. He earnestly hoped the

    69
    reply from the Secretary to the Treasury would not make it necessary to proceed to a division, but if an assurance could not be given that this evil would be redressed, he should have to carry the matter to a Division.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£381,233, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
    MR. BELLsaid he desired to support the hon. Member opposite on this matter, on the ground that these people, by removing the work to Reading where labour was cheaper, had been able to compete with London houses who had no works outside. He thought that all London contracts ought to be done by firms having their works in London. He understood that there was another reason why the work had been transferred to Reading, and that was that Messrs. Wyman could not only do the work at a lower rate of wage than the London rate, but that they had been able, as he had been informed, to introduce a large number of women to do the work which he considered should be done by men. He trusted some satisfactory reply would be given by the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote to the points now raised.
    MR. BRIGGcalled attention to the manner in which the Bills and Estimates presented to the House were stitched and the inferior string which was used for this purpose. He had previously complained of the fact that the moment one took one of these papers into their hands they fell to pieces, and the result had been that a better class of string had been used, but the old string seemed again to have taken the place of the superior quality. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give this small matter his attention.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,said he asked the indulgence of the Committee, as he had not had time to become fully acquainted with these Estimates With reference to the last point with regard to the binding of the Bills and Estimates, he would certainly inquire into the reason why the
    70
    better string used a year or two ago had been discarded for an inferior twine, and would do his best to bring back the better string. As to the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for Shoreditch, he must point out that the Government had no undue preference as to whether the work of the printer was carried out in London or in the country. It was not their business to favour contractors or workmen in any part of the kingdom; and he thought that it would be to lay down a most dangerous doctrine that the Government should inquire and give out tenders on condition that the work should be done where wages were most high. It would be a most unreasonable thing to give preference to the interests of London over the interests of the country at large. His hon. friend had called attention to the Fair Wages Resolution. There was no doubt that every Government contractor was bound to see that fair wages were given. In this case the contractors got the work done in the country, at Reading, and why should they not? He could not agree to the suggestion that the contractors should not get their work done outside of London, and he did not think that a case had been made out. He was perfectly willing to give the same assurance which was given last year by his predecessor—that if there was a case made out of a breach of the Resolution passed by the House, then the Government would be ready, willing, and anxious to inquire into it and put an end to any misconduct of the contractor.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [By Order.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he rose with some reluctance to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time he would at once say that he did not do so in hostility to the Bill itself or to the Company, but because he felt that this was the only opportunity he would have of raising a question of great interest not only to his constituents but to the agricultural industry throughout the length and breadth of the land: the question of railway rates. He also raised this question on the Second Reading of this Bill because the President of the Board of Agriculture, in a speech to the farmers at a meeting at Leicester on the 12th January last, said—
  "If the companies did not treat them fairly, when the companies came before Parliament every year for fresh powers agriculturists should make their grievances known by their representatives in Parliament"
  That was a direct invitation to Members who represented agricultural constituencies to take the course he now took, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would have a perfect right to say the farmers were not willing to help themselves because those whom they sent to represent them there would not take the opportunity of raising questions of this sort which deeply affected those whom they represented. On the other hand he admitted it was a matter of great difficulty to attack. He was not now attacking the Great Western Railway, because everyone knew the Railway Association governed this matter. He was attacking the whole railway system. The President of the Board of Agriculture in the same speech said, upon this point—
  "There was no doubt much injustice, but it was difficult to do much in the matter because railway companies had so much influence in the House of Commons."
  That being so, he opposed this Bill not so much in the hope of getting the alteration he had asked for as regards the carriage of milk in particular, but rather to make use of this opportunity of raising that question and also of rates for agricultural produce generally. Up to last year the Company, though carrying milk at owner's risk at half the rates allowed by the Act of 1891 at Company's risk under very
  72
  strict regulations, did not enforce them, and gave compensation for milk lost in transit—generally one half of its value. The Act of 1891 which applied generally to all railway companies, sanctioned a charge of what in these days are practically prohibitive rates, and the consequence has been that the railway companies introduced new rates called "owner's risk" rates, the conditions of which were—
  "The Company will not undertake either the collection or delivery of milk.
  "The Senders and Consignees must assist in the loading and unloading of the cans when the milk is carried at the Reduced Rate.
  "Two Rates are in operation for the carriage of milk:—One the Ordinary Rate charged when the Company accept the ordinary liability of a Railway Company with respect to the carriage of perishable merchandise by passenger train; the other a Reduced Rate adopted when the Sender agrees to relieve the Company and all other Companies or persons over whose lines the traffic may pass, or in whose possession the same may be during any portion of the transit, from all liability for loss, damage, misdelivery, delay or detention, either with respect to the milk or the milk cans when full or empty, except upon proof that such loss, damage, misdelivery, delay, or detention arose from wilful misconduct on the part of the Company's servants."
  Now it was utterly impossible for the farmer to prove that any loss that occurred was owing to the wilful misconduct of the company's servants. How could a farmer living in Somerset prove any fault on the part of the company's servants at Bristol, Swindon, or London? The effect of these regulations had been to put the farmer entirely into the hands of the railway companies, and the reason no effort had been made to attack the companies was that these restrictions had not been put in force until recently, although the companies had always had power to enforce them. It had been contended by some companies that they had been in the habit of paying compensation for the loss of churns; that was to say, where a churn, whether empty or full, had entirely disappeared whilst in the company's possession, the company had paid compensation not only for the milk but the churn as well; but this the farmers denied, and some had told him that although they had lost a considerable number of churns they had had no compensation. Another question that arose with regard to this

  73
  milk rate was that the railway company said they carried this milk at great inconvenience to themselves, and in fact that they had lost money on its carriage in large quantities at owners' risk; and another thing was, that it was carried in a way which prohibited it being sent in small quantities, because there is a minimum quantity of twelve gallons. If a farmer wished to send a small quantity to a private family, say four gallons, the company charged him 3d. a gallon. Four gallons sent 100 miles would cost 3d. a gallon instead of Id. per gallon. In bringing forward this matter he was supported by the North East Somerset Farmers' Club, the Somerset and Gloucestershire Dairy Farmers' Association, and Somerset Chamber of Agriculture, who have ail proposed resolutions condemning this new practice of the company. It was on behalf of these bodies and of the milk sellers of Somerset that I approached the Great Western Railway with the following three proposals:—1. The Great Western Railway Company to revert to their former practice of considering claims for milk lost in transit, and not to refuse compensation. 2. The company to pay full compensation for milk churns lost or damaged while under their control. 3. The company to compensate for loss incurred owing to milk churns being put out at the wrong station. The House would agree that these were not very onerous obligations to put upon the company, and seem only to be reasonable. In fact they had accepted the first proposal but had qualified it to a great extent. As to proposal 2 they accepted half of it only, and as regards proposal 3 they refused to accept it altogether; and he had no doubt they were acting for the Railway Association in this matter. They had said that—
  "While maintaining the provisions of the owner's risk consignment notes when milk is so conveyed, the Great Western Railway will not refuse to consider claims for milk lost in transit, under exceptional circumstances. The Great Western Railway will not consider the provisions of the owner's risk consignment note as disentitling traders to compensation where churns of milk are lost while under control of the Company.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is taking a very unusual course in discussing the details of risks on contracts
  74
  of this sort on the Second Reading of an omnibus Bill.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Then I will leave that part of the question and go on at once to refer to what has been said by the Great Western Railway. The hon. Gentleman continuing said the company contended that, having regard to the fact that the average retail price of milk was 1s. 4d. per gallon, the price they charged for carriage was not excessive, and that the farmers ought to be able to obtain a profitable payment for the milk they supplied. Could any statement be more misleading? While it might be true that the retailer got that in the West End of London, it was perfectly well known that the farmers had to be content with from 5d. to 7d. per gallon, and the margin of profit was so small that he felt any increase in the rate or any change in the conditions under which milk was carried by railway companies. It was a matter of great difference to him whether he paid a farthing or a halfpenny a gallon for milk sent to the Metropolis. Again, what encouragement did the railway companies offer to farmers to supply the consumers direct, to the advantage of both, and so do away with the middle-man. None at all, for the Great Western rates for small quantities of milk were prohibitive at owner's risk, minimum of twelve gallons, e.g., five gallons over 100 miles at 1s.¾d. equal to 3d. a gallon. To this must be added 1s. for delivery, or equal to over 5d a gallon, or nearly equal to the cost of the milk itself. Great Eastern rates equivalent were 1d. per gallon and worked out at 4¾d. a gallon for carriage, while value of milk was only 5d. to 7d. a gallon.
  But it was not only for milk that the Great Western Railway rates were so high. Take their rates (owner's risk), with free delivery in usual limits, for farm and dairy produce not exceeding thirty miles, and compare them under the same conditions with other railways they found that the Great Western Railway for 4d. carried 4 lbs. for not exceeding thirty miles, while the Great Eastern Railway for 4d. carried 8 lbs., or double, for the same distance. The Great Western Railway carried for 5d. 6 lbs. for the same distance, the Great Eastern Railway

  75
  carried 16 lbs. for 5d. Again, comparing three railways carrying these same goods for thirty miles with the Great Western Railway, the Great Eastern Railway carried 72 lbs. for 6d., the London and North Western Railway carried 48 lbs. for 6d., and the Great Northern Railway carried 48 lbs. for 6d. The Great Western Railway carried 24 lbs. for 6d. He would give two more examples. The Great Western Railway rate for 32 lbs. was 7d., while the Great Eastern Railway carried 88 lbs. for that amount, and carried one cwt. for 9d., while the Great Western Railway's rate for one cwt. was 1s. 5d., and the London and Brighton, Great Central, London and North Western, and the Great Northern rate was 1s. 2d. per cwt. The Great Western Railway rate for feeding stuffs is arbitrary from Bristol to Clutton ten miles, the rate is 2s. 7d. for two ton lots of corn, and 3s. 4d. for two ton lots of cake, the same in either case whether in sacks or loose.
  But this question of railway rates and owner's risk was not only an agricultural question, for he noticed that the Report of the Council of the Bristol Chamber of Commerce referred to it. The Report said:—
  "The action of railway companies in asking for a declaration freeing them from considerable liability, which as common carriers the traders consider legally belonged to the railway companies, has been the cause of meetings of Chambers of Commerce in various parts of the country, when the course adopted by the companies was strongly condemned, and it was urged that it was calculated if persisted in to inflict serious injury on local industries. It was also resolved to recommend the commercial community not to sign the general agreement for goods to be carried at reduced rates at owner's risk, pending results of negotiations with the companies."
  Chambers of Commerce were highly organised bodies and could make their voice heard, but not so the scattered agricultural interest, and their only resource was this House. He might be told by the representative of the Board of Trade who deals with this matter that they could appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners on this question, but how could a farmer go to that expensive procedure. That had been recognised in the case of Ireland. Would that the English farmer had the protection afforded the Irish farmer by Section 17 of the Agriculture and
  76
  Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, which provided that the Irish Board of Agriculture might appear as complainant on behalf of any persons aggrieved in reference to any matter which the Railway and Canal Commissioners had jurisdiction to hear and determine. For what use is it for the Government to tell the English farmer that he can appeal himself at his own cost to those Commissioners? They might not have the President of the Board of Trade on their side, but they knew they had the sympathy of the President of the Board of Agriculture, and it was upon these grounds, and because the farmers were unable to speak for themselves, that he begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. DICKINSONsaid he was bound to say he was to a certain extent in agreement with the hon. Baronet, but on the other hand he lived in the district that the Great Western Railway traversed and was a constant passenger on that line, and must bear witness to the good accommodation they afforded to their passengers, and the courtesy shown by the officials. There was no doubt that in the rural districts they looked for some improvements in the rates now charged by the Great Western Railway, and as a representative of one of the greatest dairy districts, perhaps the largest in this country, he could not allow this Bill to pass without according some support to the hon. Baronet in the contention that he had laid before the House. As the hon. Baronet has said, because of the speech he made at Devizes and other places, some confidence has been placed in the President of the Board of Agriculture. Opposition was coming to the Great Western Railway, because a very important railway was now in course of promotion between London and Bristol, and while on the

  77
  one hand so good was the passenger accommodation of the Great Western Railway that he could hardly imagine any system or new railway being able to compete with it, yet this new railway, if it was to live at all, could only be assumed to be able to live out of the goods traffic, and therefore one would naturally suppose there was some cause of complaint with regard to the treatment of agriculture in the rural districts. There was one other matter he should allude to on this occasion, and that was that Parliament always viewed with great jealousy any amalgamation of railway companies. There was in this Bill a clause, Clause 44, which alluded to the amalgamation with the Great Western Railway of the Ely Valley Railway, and he believed this particular clause was the exact case that was brought against the Great Western Railway, because by that clause the rates now charged by the Ely Valley Railway would be swept away, and the new rates of the Great Western Railway were to be substituted. That was a point which might possibly be explained by the fact that the Ely Valley Railway was a very small railway, and that there was no object, therefore, in unduly pressing the point; but it was a matter which was closely connected with the Bill in question, because they were anxious to obtain a reduction of rates and they were anxious that the Great Western Railway should bring that forward.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid he could understand the position taken up by the hon. Baronet opposite, but not the position taken by his hon. friend. In reply to the remarks of the hon. Baronet, he might say he did not speak only as a director, but should like to appeal to the House as a trader, farmer, and milk-seller for a great number of years. The hon. Baronet opposite had carefully omitted one point from his remarks. He had spoken of the milk rates of the Great We tern Railway and the system of introducing "owner's risk" rates for milk. He would remind him that prior to 1888 there was no obligation on the part of the railway companies to carry milk except as goods, and certainly no
  78
  obligation to carry it by passenger train. Then came a time later on, when, by an order of the Board of Trade, following the Bill of 1888, arrangements were made with regard to the carriage of milk by passenger train. It then became necessary, so far as the Great Western Railway was concerned, that there should be not only the ordinary company's rate, but there should be also the rate known as "owner's risk rate." When these rates were first instituted in 1893, the rate for a district within 100 miles of London, where most of the milk consigned to Paddington came from, for twelve gallons was 1s. 7d. That was the company's risk. Now came the price under the owner's risk. As against 1s. 7d. company's risk the owner's risk was 1s. 4½d. In that same year, in consequence of representations made to the company, a further reduction was made in the owner's risk rate which was reduced to 1s. 3d. Again, in 1896 there was a further reduction in consequence of the statement that was made that the railway company were called upon to refund next to nothing on account of damage done, and the owner's risk rate is now 1s., the company's risk rate remaining as it always has 1s. 7d. Thus in three years a reduction of 25 per cent. has been made on the carriage of milk. In 1886 the course taken by the farmers and traders was different to that which had been taken by the hon. Baronet to-night. Then the farmers and traders of the West of England approached the directors of the Great Western Railway and met them in conference, with the result that, as he had said, the rate from Bristol and other places was reduced by 25 per cent. in three years. There was all the difference in the world between the owner's risk and the company's risk rate. The owner's risk rate was a lower rate because, when the owner took the risk, he signed every day an agreement mentioning the amount of milk in his churn, and he had to agree to certain conditions which were published and which, every morning and afternoon, either he or his agent had to sign before the milk could be sent away. The hon. Baronet opposite, as a milk seller, had signed those conditions for many years, and he had never objected.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, I did, but I was forced to sign them because you would not take my milk else.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: The hon. Baronet signed those conditions again and again and there was not the slightest doubt that he was satisfied with the agreement that was made. In 1882 the Great Western Railway carried 750,993 gallons, and in 1892, ten years after, they carried 1,089,156 gallons, which will show to some extent the amount of our milk-carrying trade in the West of England, and anybody who knows anything about it will appreciate the difficulty of carrying such a huge amount of milk without accidents occasionally happening. What really has happened is this, that when these rates were reduced from time to time the farmers unfortunately did not get the full benefit of the reductions the fact being that whenever the company reduced its rates the London dealers lowered their price to farmers, and farmers submitted without a word, and so really gained nothing by the railway concession. The whole profit going into the pockets of the dealers. With regard to the price of milk, the average price that a farmer obtained was in winter 8d. per gallon, and in summer 5d. per gallon. The ordinary charge in London was something like 1s. 4d. per gallon, or double as much as the farmer got in winter, and three times as much as he got in summer. The public did not complain, and now the House of Commons was asked to say that it was the railway company's fault that the farmers did not get the benefit of the charges. Until the farmers combined together and sent up their milk in the way that other produce was sent up, they would remain at this disadvantage. The fact of the matter was that his hon. friend wanted the advantage of the company's risk at the owner's risk rate. He admitted, on behalf of the railway company, that at times there had been irregularities. But in speaking of the damage to churns and so forth, it had to be remembered that the churns were not entirely in the hands of the railway company. The agreement was that they should be put on the trucks, and that assistance should be given by
  80
  the farmer's men. When the milk was in transit it was undoubtedly in the charge of the company, but the company had nothing whatever to do with the delivery of it, and anyone who had been at any of the large termini in London in the early morning would have seen the reckless way in which these churns were knocked about. Damage must ensue, but it was not fair to the company to say that the damage was done entirely by their servants. He did not ignore the fact that certain cases of hardship had arisen. Some time ago it was the habit of the company's servants to give compensation carelessly, or to recommend cases for compensation for damage done when the cans had been sent at owner's risk. The attention of the servants was called to the fact by the chief officers, and possibly in some cases they went to the other extreme. The public had only to make their cases known to the chief officers, and they would receive fair attention. This Bill was not a Bill simply to create charges for milk or other rates; it was an omnibus Bill involving an expenditure of a million of money. The question of rates did not arise except indirectly. With regard to new works that were to be carried out, powers were being sought to put them with respect to milk rates in the same position as the rest of the system of the Great Western Railway. In that respect, and in that respect only, could the question of rates be brought into the discussion of the Bill. It was much against the wishes of the Great Western Railway Company Directors, and of the officers of the company, that difficulties should arise, and if hon. Gentlemen representing those engaged in the trade would only write direct to the chief officers, he could guarantee that they would not get simply an official answer, but that men would be sent immediately into the neighbourhood to see into any complaints. For these reasons he did not see that hon. Members would have any reason to complain if they allowed the Bill to pass. He therefore hoped that the ordinary course would be followed, and that the Second Reading would now be allowed to be taken, and the Bill sent upstairs for full inquiry.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that anyone listening to the debate would naturally suppose that this was a Bill containing a new schedule of rates for the carriage of milk, whereas it was a Bill for conferrin; powers on the Great Western Railway Company in respect of their own undertakings and upon that company and certain other companies whose names were recited in respect of undertakings in which they were jointly interested, and upon the Fishguard and Rossland Railways and Harbours Company in respect of their undertaking, and for amalgamating the Ely Valley Railway Company with the Great Western Railway Company, and other purposes. There was an expenditure of about a million and a quarter of money involved in this Bill, and it would be a very serious disaster indeed to that part of England with which those Members who had spoken were connected if the Bill were not passed. He therefore thought his hon. friend had brought up this question more by way of a protest than with any serious intention of taking a division. But with regard to the specific point to which he had referred he had not heard there was any serious discontent; certainly nothing had yet reached him from those whom he represented. It might, of course, be said that although he was not a Great Western Director, he was tarred with the Great Western brush, because a part of his constituency comprised the large town of Swindon. But a large number of his constituents were agriculturists, and from the circumstance that his constituency was partly agricultural and partly urban he claimed to be able to look at this question in an impartial manner. He quite admitted and it had been admitted by the hon. Member who had just spoken, and by the Great Western Railway Company themselves, that from time to time there had been cases of hardship owing to misunderstandings with regard to this question of owner's risk. But while that was admitted, the Great Western Railway Company had gone three-fourths of the way, as he understood, towards meeting the views of his hon. friend. Every member of the House who had seen the unloading of these enormous numbers of milk-cans at Paddington
  82
  Station must be perfectly aware that there was a great risk of loss and injury; that these cans got knocked and battered about by rough handling, and that naturally claims for compensation from time to time arose. But it had also to be borne in mind on the other hand, as the statistics which had been given of the gigantic increase of this traffic showed, that these rates had not had the effect of paralysing or checking the milk traffic in the West of England to any appreciable degree. On the contrary, if anything, agriculturists in the West of England were rather inclined to lament that the whole of the country was now being put down to grass, that the making of cheese and butter was being entirely abandoned, and that the farmer thought of absolutely nothing except producing milk, putting it into these cans, and sending it up to London. He would not discuss whether that was a wise or a foolish thing to do, but it showed that although there were undoubtedly cases, as the Great Western Railway Company themselves admitted, of occasional hardship, there could not be anything in these milk rates which could be said to paralyse or check that great industry which was increasing by leaps and bounds. That being so, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to go to Second Reading. If it was desired to raise any of the points to which reference had been made he submitted that the natural and proper course would be to take any legitimate opportunity there might be to thresh them out in the Committee upstairs.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the whole point that his hon. friend had raised was that the Great Western Railway was extending its system over which it had a monopoly, and that they would put their high rates on to the new railways that were being built, and also on to the railway which was to be amalgamated, and on which the present rates were lower than those of the Great Western Railway Company. It had been suggested that his hon. friend and others who had grievances should go direct to the directors and represent them. That was all very well for isolated cases, but it was to the general principle of high rates that they desired to draw attention.

  83
  The very people who could not go to the railway directors were the small farmers, and the small people, who were the great sufferers, and it was to those people that they wanted to extend the general principle of the reduction of rates for milk and agricultural produce throughout the country. He looked upon this as a national question, because what applied to this railway would apply to other railways, and the House, by allowing railways to extend their systems, and to apply their scales of rates and charges over agricultural districts, prevented new railways being the benefit they ought to be to the agricultural parts of the country. While he hoped his hon. friend would not go to a division, he looked forward in future days to seeing some curtailment of these powers instead of their extension.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. He had no hostility at all to the Great Western Railway Bill as a Bill; he had simply taken this, opportunity of raising a question which affected not only his constituents, but also the farmers at large in the West of England.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS II.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £381,333, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the
    84
    31st day of March 1904, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
    CAPT. SINCLAIRcalled attention to the change which had been made in the indexing of Hansard. The system of indexing which, during the last four or five years had given some satisfaction, had this year been changed. Possibly it was due to a desire to economise in the printing and publishing of the Debates, but he submitted that in the important matter of the record of its own proceedings, Parliament ought to be able to lay down some general rules by which some degree of continuity would be ensured. Heads of reference which had appeared in former years were now omitted, and new heads had been introduced. This would certainly cause difficulty and confusion in referring to the records of past years, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give the matter his attention.
    MR. DALZIELasked whether there was not a motion for the reduction of the Vote before the Committee.
    The CHAIRMANsaid that with the adjournment all motions for reduction; dropped, and the subject was started afresh at the evening sitting.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that in that case he would repeat the Motion he made at the morning sitting, viz., to reduce the Vote by £100. If it was alleged that the contract of which he complained was open to the whole country, and that therefore the scale of wages which obtained in London did not apply, why had that scale of wages been applied to this contract, and a preference given to a firm which was not a London firm in the true sense of the term, but one which had works in the country and was consequently able to compete unfairly with London firms whose works were in London? He wished to know if this contract was thrown open to all the printers of the country, and, if so, he should like to know the names of a few of the non-

    85
    London firms who competed. There must be something very strange indeed about this contract in view of the fact that the wages in London at the time the contract was made were 38s. per week, as against 28s. per week in Reading. It was very singular that country firms were not able to tender upon a basis which would have enabled them to compete favourably. The real crux of the question was that, while other firms based their tenders upon the London scale of wages, this firm was allowed to base its tender upon the Reading scale of wages, and therefore a very unfair advantage was obtained over other printers who had not two sets of works, one in London and the other in Reading. He hoped his hon. friend would not repeat the assurance given to them last year, but would make some definite statement as to the intention of the Government. They had always understood that the whole arrangement was framed upon general principles, and surely some very distinct and special scheme might be adopted under which no contractor having the advantages which he had indicated would be able to drive a coach and four, not only through the intentions of the officers whose business it was to conduct negotiations, but also through what had been a very serious principle established by a Vote of the House. He hoped the Government would be able to make such arrangements as would prevent any particular contractor defeating the great principle which Parliament had laid down. He begged to move a reduction of this Vote by £100.
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £381,233, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,said that with reference to the question raised by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Forfar, the change which had been made in the indexing of Hansard was done with a desire to economise, and to get the work done better than it had been done before, and done by more competent hands. In the particular case to which
    86
    the hon. and gallant Member had referred, he believed that a change had been made for the better, and, as time went on, he thought it would be found that the House would gain considerably by the change. To this cause was no doubt due the modification and the alteration in the system of indexing. It was, however, most important that the indexing should be carried out on the same general lines as before. With reference to the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Shoreditch, he had little to add to what he said upon this question of the Fair Wages Resolution before the adjournment. His hon. friend; stated that there had been some breach of the Fair Wages Resolution passed by the House in 1901, but his hon. friend had not brought forward any specific cases to show that either the Government or the contractors have been unwilling to carry out the Resolution. His hon. friend seemed to think that, in some way or another, this contract had been limited to firms in London, but that was not so, and it would be a most undesirable and improper course to take if they insisted upon any such condition.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if the hon. Gentleman could give the name of any firm outside London who tendered for this contract.
    MR. ELLIOTsaid he did not think it was desirable to give the names of those firms who were unsuccessful, and he did not see what would be gained by giving such information. His hon. friend contended that there had been a breach of the Resolution passed by the House, and be would ask him to define clearly what that breach was. In the absence of any evidence that this rule had been broken he had a right to hold that it was unbroken. He could only repeat the assurance given by his predecessors that if any specific cases where there had been any breach of the Fair Wages Resolution by the contractor were brought forward, the Government were willing to investigate them and set matters right.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the contract for the Debates had been made on the basis of a rate of wages of 38s. per week,

    87
    whereas the present contract was actually being carried out in a district where the wages were 28s. per week. Therefore the Government paid the full amount and the contractor got the difference of 10s. per week in the rate of wages.
    MR. ELLIOTsaid he did not agree with the hon. Member's statement that the contract was made upon one basis and carried out upon another. The present contractors had a place of business in London, and it was almost an absurd suggestion to say that the contract must be carried out in that particular place where the contract was made. He did not wish in any way to disregard the Fair Wages Resolution which the House had adopted, but he claimed that the Government had a right to ask for specific cases where a breach had taken place to be brought before them, and if this course were adopted, the Government would do their best to set matters right.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYreferred to the indexing of Hansard and the efficiency of reporting
    the debates. There was only one word which described the principle upon which Hansard was indexed; it was "exasperating," due to a principle of economy which was always interfering with the efficiency of this public service. His hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that arrangements had been made for getting the indexing and reporting done in a more efficient manner, and he also said in a more economical way. The energies of the House should be directed to making the service connected with Hansard good rather than cheap, and a model to all other publications of public utility. It was too soon to speak of the new system of indexing, but unless it was a departure from the old system it would be of no use. If the same cheese-paring want of cross references was allowed to interfere with its efficiency the thing would be no better in the future than in the past.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes,55; Noes, 109. (Division List, No. 63.)

    AYES.

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Shackleton, David James

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Black, Alexander William

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Brigg, John

    Kearley, Hudson E

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Sullivan, Donal

    Burt, Thomas

    Levy, Maurice

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Caldwell, James

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Partington, Oswald

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

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

    Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

    Perks, Robert William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Price, Robert John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Rea, Russell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Claude Hay and Mr Bell.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Rigg, Richard

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Grant, Corrie

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

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

    Agnew, Sir Andrew-Noel

    Bignold, Arthur

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

    Bigwood, James

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bond, Edward

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Denny, Colonel

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Charrington, Spencer

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Reid, James (Greenock)

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

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow}

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lawson, John Grant

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Flower, Ernest

    Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

    Spear, John Ward

    Forster, Henry William

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Valentia, Viscount

    Greene, Sir E.W. (Bury St. Ed.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Gretton, John

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Penn, John

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Heath, James (Stafford. N. W.

    Percy, Earl

    Helder, Augustus

    Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Purvis, Robert

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to draw attention to the magnitude of this Vote. Although there was a net decrease of £68,000 they had by no means got back to the before the war expenditure. On referring to the figures for the year 1899–1900 he found that, in spite of this small reduction, the Vote still remained £100,000 above the expenditure of that year. He thought that the Stationery Department was one of the most extravagant of all the Departments whose Estimates were laid before the Committee. At any rate, it was one of those Departments where there was the greatest room for saving, and he hoped the new Secretary to the Treasury would take the opportunity of employing his energies in trying to reduce the heavy expenditure they were now asked to pass. Before the war the Vote used to run about £570,000; this year it was £701,000. He intended to move the reduction of the Vote, but before doing so he should like to say a word or two as to the quality of the reporting of Hansard. It must be in the knowledge of many Members that almost every newspaper in the country had a much higher quality of reporting than the House got under the Hansard contract. He supposed it was because the contractor did
    90
    not pay sufficiently high salaries to command the quality of men who could do the condensation necessary to bring the speeches within the required length. It was one thing to report a speaker verbatim; it was a very different thing, and required a superior man, to be able to condense a speech into one third of its actual length and yet give the main purport of the speech. There was a very general complaint that the quality of the reporting done under the Hansard contract was very much inferior to the general reporting in the newspaper Press, and he did not see any reason why that should be so. If proper salaries were paid to the staff to do the work the contractor would be able to command the services of men who would give, not length, because it was not a question of the length of the report, but quality of condensation in those reports. He would like the Secretary of the Treasury to give the Committee, if he could, the exact figure of the increased cost caused by the new rule with regard to unstarred Questions, and how much of that cost might be saved if the Questions and Answers were printed continuously and on both sides of the paper, as the questions were printed on the Orders of the Day, instead of each Question and Answer occupying a separate sheet of paper. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £200.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £381,133, be granted for the said service."ߞ(Mr. Whitley.)
    MR. ELLIOT, who was indistinctly heard in the Press gallery, sad he was not surprised that the hon. Member complained that the Estimates, now that the war was at an end, had not fallen in so large a ratio as he would have expected. The Stationery Department was every year doing more and more, because in one way and another greater demands were made upon it. All sorts of Returns were asked for, and the printing of these involved greater expenditure. He found there was a considerably increased demand on the part of hon. Members to be supplied with the Hansard debates. The fact of the matter with reference to the Vote at large was, that if they looked around they would see that a greatly increased business had now to be done, and he believed it would be extremely difficult very largely to reduce the Vote, but he dared say that something might be done in this direction by care and by closely looking into details. But the Committee must not lose sight of the fact that it was an increasing business that the Department was doing, and that, consequently, they must expect a certain increase in the expenses. As to the reporting of Hansard, it was good that the Committee should know what the views of hon. Members were. Personally, he was very strongly opposed to to the notion of anything like official reporting. Official reporting seemed to involve verbatim reporting, and the reporting of every word of every speech of every Member would make Hansard a more overwhelming, a more appalling publication than it was at present. He did not think the official reporting of their debates in Parliament had reached anything like a pitch of perfection, and therefore he welcomed the remarks of the hon. Member, and hoped they might do good, and tend to improve the way in which the work of Hansard was done. As to the hon. Member's reference to unstarred Questions, he would remind him that it was known perfectly well that to adopt the practice now in force would be a very expensive business.
    92
    But there was great pressure on the part of the House in that direction, and the Government had only carried out the wishes of the House. His own opinion was that the change in the system of dealing with Questions was a change immensely for the better.
    MR. DALZIELsaid the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Halifax for drawing attention to the increase which was going on with reference to the Stationery Department Vote. The subject of the Hansard reports was one which was raised almost every year when opportunity presented itself. His hon. friend had complained of the quality of the reporting. He himself could speak altogether without prejudice, because he had never once opened the proofs of his speeches which had been sent to him, because it did not interest him to read his own speeches. The present system of reporting the debates was of no value whatever to the House. What value could be attached to the reports when Members were permitted to take a half column out of their speeches and insert another, perhaps more pleasing to their constituents? So long as they allowed Members to alter their speeches they could never have a report of the proceedings of the House which could be of any value. Under the present system the reporting was a farce. A Committee which sat to consider the matter some years ago recommended the adoption of the American system—namely, the employment by the State of its own reporters, and the publication of a journal every morning giving fully the speeches of all Members, official and private alike, but allowing no alterations. Only to such a record could any reliability be attached. They should have a permanent and well-paid staff of reporters, and he hoped the new Secretary to the Treasury would look into this matter. By having a permanent staff of reporters, who would retain their situations irrespective of any change of contractors, they would be able to get the best men for the work they had to perform. The Stationery Department Estimates required, above all others, to be carefully scrutinised, and he suggested that the Treasury should appoint three or four

    93
    experts to do nothing else than check the printing in the different Departments. The hon. Member complained of the delay which took place in the supply of Parliamentary papers because the printers did not do their work in time. The papers were supplied to the printers in plenty of time, but the delay in printing occurred on account of one or two particular firms getting too much of the work to do. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would keep in mind that this inconvenience might be obviated by a greater division of the labour. They ought not to be tied to any particular printer.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONdid not agree with the view of the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs that the report of a speech was of no value unless it was given as delivered. The great models of Parliamentary eloquence in former times were not reported in the way speeches were now reported. Did the hon. Member suppose that the speeches of Burke were printed as they were spoken House? In those days reporting in the House was illegal, and Burke accordingly sent the manuscripts of his speeches to the Press. If speeches were recorded as delivered there would be so many "hums" and "haws" in the report that it would astonish the speaker. He was not sure that the present system was not the most convenient, because under it the reporters were able to produce in a consecutive form a speech which might be some what broken in delivery.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTScomplained that a Blue-book containing some of the dispatches with reference to the negotiations before the war had been out of print for months and could not be obtained anywhere. It was a Blue-book for which there was a great demand.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid that many Members had expressed a great deal of discontent at the present condition of the Parliamentary reporting, They were often made to talk nonsense, and even to say precisely the opposite to what they did say. He agreed with his right hon. friend that a verbatim report would sometimes be hard on the speaker, but there was a certain consolation in seeing one's own "hums" and "haws" and not those invented by a reporter. The ideal would be to have reporters of such intelligence as to be able to put in felicitous language what a speaker intended to say, but if that ideal was not attainable, then it was desirable that the speaker should not be made to show an ignorance greater even than he really did show and to use arguments which, from what he had previously said, were evidently contradictory. He protested also against the burden thrown on Members of correcting the reports sent to them, He hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would give this subject his attention.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 64.)

    AYES.

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

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

    Bell, Richard

    Brigg, John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Black, Alexander William

    Brown, George M, (Edinburgh)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Levy, Maurice

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Caldwell, James

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Scares, Ernest J.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sullivan, Donal

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Partington, Oswald

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Price, Robert John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Fenwick, Charles

    Priestley, Arthur

    Weir, James Galloway

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Rea, Russell

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Rigg, Richard

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Harms worth, R. Leicester

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Hutchinson, Dr Charles Fredk.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. H. Whitley and Mr. Dalziel.

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Shackleton, David James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Morgan, David J. (Carmarthen

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Flower, Ernest

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

    Forster, Henry William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Percy, Earl

    Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

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

    Purvis, Robert

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gretton, John

    Rankin, Sir James

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bigwood, James

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bond, Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

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

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.

    Spear, John Ward

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

    Lawson, John Grant

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

    Denny, Colonel

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    Majendie, James A. H.

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

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £52,264, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of
    96
    payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under The Light Railways Act, 1896."
    MR. DALZIELsaid that on page 88 there was a salary of £800 given to a British non-resident Director of the Suez Canal, and in a footnote it was stated that this gentleman received £950 per annum, paid by the Board of Superannuation, as late Deputy Master of the Mint. It would appear, therefore, that this gentleman, who had been retired as too old to undertake the responsible duty connected with the Mint, was immediately provided with another billet, carrying a salary of £800 per annum for discharging duties much more responsible than those from which he had been retired. Some explanation was due to the Committee in regard to this matter.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to draw attention to the differentiation of the pay of upper division clerks in various Government Departments. He would like to know why the upper division clerks at the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board were paid so much less than similar clerks at the Treasury, the Home Office, and the Colonial Office. All of them had to pass the same examination, and their qualifications were equal. As Bill after Bill became law each session, new responsibilities were thrown on the clerks at the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, and their duties were certainly as important as those carried out by the Home Office and the Colonial Office clerks. It was generally known that gentlemen who had influence were placed in the more favourable offices. He hoped that a Departmental Committee would consider the matter of levelling up the salaries of the upper division clerks at the Board of Trade
    98
    and the Local Government Board to those of the Treasury, the Home Office, and Colonial Office; or, if not, of levelling the latter down to the scale of the former.
    MR. DEWARsaid he wished to draw attention to a small matter on page87,under the Exchequer Department in Scotland. He found that the chief clerk was receiving £650 per annum, although the maximum salary of the office should be only £600; and in a footnote it was stated that the same gentleman received £150 as Secretary to the Congested Districts Board. He objected to a chief clerk dividing his attention between two such entirely different Departments. He did not think it could add to the efficiency of the Exchequer Office, and he was perfectly certain it prevented efficiency at the Congested Districts Board. He begged to move, as a protest, the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £52,164, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Dewar.)
    MR. WEIRsaid he was glad that his hon. friend had brought this very serious question before the Committee, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his Motion. This clerk was engaged by the Exchequer Office in Scotland, but was taken away to discharge duties in another Department which would absorb the whole of his time. He objected altogether to this system of dual offices, and he hoped that the new Financial Secretary would put a stop to it.
    MR. ELLIOTsaid he did not profess to be well acquainted with the specific duties of the Chief Clerk in the Exchequer Office in Scotland, and he could only say he would look carefully into the matter and see whether the present arrangement was one which ought to be continued in the future. In reference to the matter of the Directorship of the Suez Canal being given to the late Deputy Master of the Mint, he could only say that the appointment had given general satisfaction. His hon. friend had raised a point as to levelling up the salaries of different clerks in different offices, [Mr. HAY: Or leveling down.] but he would remind his hon. friend that these salaries were carefully gone over from time to time.
    Mr. DEWARsaid he certainly thought it would be dangerous to pass the Vote with the footnote attached.
    Mr. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Secretary to the Treasury had not answered his question. He had told them that the salaries were not fixed but were subject to alteration from time to time. What he understood was that the pay in the Colonial Office, the Home Office, and the Treasury, for the first and second grades was sensibly better than that under the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. Was there any intention of revising the pay of these offices in accordance with the recommendation of the Ridley Commission, which in this case at any rate had been departed from by the Treasury? Would the question of levelling up or down, as the case might be, be favourably considered by the Departmental Committee promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the
    100
    duties of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade?
    MR. DALZIELhoped that before another year came round the hon. Gentleman would look into this matter and try and make the Vote more acceptable to the Committee. He would like to point out that one gentleman who received a Government pension of £950 a year acted as a non-resident Suez Canal director, with an additional £800 a year, and that he was also a Secretary to the British Embassy, and a commercial attaché in France, in Belgium, and in Switzerland. How could he act in three different countries and satisfactorily perform the duties of the five different offices?
    MR. WHITLEYsaid there appeared to be something mysterious about these Suez Canal directors. They were appointed and paid in a different manner, and seeing that one of them held five different offices, surely the matter was one deserving of investigation at the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury. There must be plenty of persons capable of filling these places without it being necessary to appoint to them persons who had already served full time in their own Departments and had retired on honourable pensions.
    MR. ELLIOTwas understood to say in reply that the arrangement was in no way opposed to the prime interests of this country. In answer to the hon. Member for the Shoreditch Division of Hoxton, he could only say that the Departmental Committee appointed a short time ago would have to take into consideration the question of the

    101
    differences of pay in different Departments and make recommendations thereupon.
    MR. DALZIELwas surprised and disappointed that the hon. Gentleman had become so excellent an official in so short a time. From the manner in which he had spoken one would think he had been at the Treasury thirty years. They certainly had expected him to give them some grounds for hoping for a better state of things. When he remembered the enthusiasm with which the hon Gentleman used to attack anything in the nature of a job from below the gangway, he had hoped that the new Secretary to the Treasury would have undertaken to give close attention to these matters. He had not convinced the Committee that a paid Secretary to the Embassy at Paris could be a director of the Suez Canal, and at the same time look after the commercial interests of this country in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. He was surprised and disappointed that the hon. Member should have taken so small a view of the duties of commercial attachés whose task it was to look out for trade and to watch our vast commercial interests.
    The Deputy Master of the Mint, who had recently retired on a pension of £950, had been appointed a director of the Suez Canal with a salary of £800 a year. If he had been a humbler individual, the probability was that his pension would have been reduced proportionately, but that had not been done in this case. He totally disagreed with the hon. Gentleman when he told them that the duties of the five offices held by one gentleman could be satisfactorily performed by an official resident in Paris.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYcomplained that the vague reply made had not answered his question why the recommendation of the Ridley Commission had been departed from, and why uniformity had not been introduced into the salaries in the several Departments he had referred to. He was not satisfied to be put off with a few vague phrases to the effect that the matter would be considered next year.
    Question put.
    Committee divided:—Ayes, 49; Noes 115, (Division List No. 65.)

    AYES.

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Bell, Richard

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Black, Alexander William

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Kitson, Sir James

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Brigg, John

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

    Levy, Maurice

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Lough, Thomas

    Weir, James Galloway

    Caldwell, James

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Partington, Oswald

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Delany, William

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

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

    Doogan, P. C.

    Price, Robert John

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Priestley, Arthur

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Rea, Russell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Dewar and Mr. Dalziel.

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Rigg, Richard

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

    Forster, Henry William

    Percy, Earl

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Purvis, Robert

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

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

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Randles, John S.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

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

    Rankin, Sir James

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Gretton, John

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bigwood, James

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

    Bond, Edward

    Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

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

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Spear, John Ward

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lawson, John Grant

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Maconochie, A. W.

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

    Denny, Colonel

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Milvain, Thomas

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

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

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    MR. DALZIELasked if the Government were given the Vote, they would be prepared to report Progress.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,said if the Vote were passed, he would be prepared to accept the Motion that progress be reported.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    MR. BUCHANAN MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.) moved: "That it be an instruction
    104
    to the Standing Committee on Law that they have power to extend the County Councils (Bills in Parliament Bill to Scotland."
    MR. GALLOWAYasked whether the Motion was in order under Standing Order 15, which said that on an allotted day no business other than Supply could be taken before midnight. That Rule was made with the express purpose of shutting out Motions such as that of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is so; I had forgotten this was an allotted day.
    Adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.