Sitting of 10 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to direct the attention of Mr. Speaker to the following entry in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings—
The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Noes had it; and, on his delusion being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Three Members having stood up, the Chairman declared that the Noes had it."
That was an erroneous entry, because it was contrary to Standing Order No. 30, which provided that in such circumstances the Chairman should call on the hon. Members who supported his decision to also stand up in their places. Otherwise the Chairman could not know how many Members, if any, supported his decision. He submitted, therefore, that the entry was erroneous, because the Chairman had not acted in accordance with the Standing Order.
*MR. SPEAKER: NO doubt the course stated by the hon. Gentleman is the proper course, and I assume it was

303
followed. Very often a few hon. Members rise in their places on one side of the House; and the opinion of the House being obvious, the Question is not formally put that the hon. Members who support the Chairman's decision should also rise in their places. Strictly speaking, the Question should be put as regards both.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that otherwise the Chairman could have no knowledge how many hon. Members, if any, supported his decision.
*MR. SPEAKER: He may not have any actual knowledge, but he may be able to form an accurate opinion.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]; Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Cheshire Lines Committee Bill; High land and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Scottish-American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  Alexandra Park and Palace Bill. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Worthing Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; Derby Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to be upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Amendments to Hastings Tram ways (Extensions) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled. "An Act to transfer to the Board of Agriculture powers and duties relating to the Industry of Fishing, and to mend The Board of Agriculture Act, 1889." [Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Brighton to construct and work tram ways and street works; and for other purposes." [Brighton Corporation Bill (Lords).]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the South Staffordshire Tramways (Lessee) Company, Limited; for the working of tramways by electrical power; and for other purposes." [South Staffordshire Tramways Bill (Lords).]
  Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords]; South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  London School Board (Hilldrop Road Site) Bill. Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the London School Board (Hilldrop Road Site) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Sir William Anson.)

PETITIONS.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Hove, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Edinburgh; and Nottingham; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Two Petitions from Edinburgh, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  MOTOR CARS (SPEED).
  Petition from Leeds, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of rules made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the examination in music, dated 26th June, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Copy presented, of statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1901–2. Thirty eighth number [by Act]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 249.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS.]
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th July; Mr. Banar Law] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 250.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3020 to 3026 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.)
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 594 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COMMERCIAL RELATIONS (COMMERCIAL, No. 5, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence with the Governments of Belgium and Germany as to their Commercial Relations with Great Britain and British Colonies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  PUBLIC RECORDS (COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL).
  Copy of Second Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].

  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS.)
  Address for "Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1902, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, and those by agreement over £50."
  "And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1405])."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Spirit Licences to Gold Coast Natives.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any reports showing that spirit licences have been issued to natives on the Gold Coast; and, if so, can he say how many such licences were issued in the month of February; and what regulations are in force on the Gold Coast and in the other British Possessions of West Africa as to the issue of licences, both with regard to the number issued, the character and qualification of the licencee, and the charge for each licence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No distinction is drawn between natives and other persons in the Gold Coast laws relating to the grant of spirit licences. I am not in a position to state the number of licences issued to natives during the month of February. The regulations to which the hon. Member refers in the latter part of his Question are contained in the following laws, which can be seen in the Library of the Colonial Office—Gambia—Ordinance No. 9 of 1894. Sierra Leone—Ordinance of the 14th March, 1854; Ordinance of the 8th September, 1856; Ordinance No. 13 of 1874; Ordinance No. 9 of 1901. Gold Coast—Ordinance No. 18 of 1887; Ordinance No. 3 of 1897; Ordinance No. 21 of 1900; Ordinance No. 5 of 1902; Lagos—Ordinance No. 14 of 1893. Southern Nigeria—Proclamation No. 2 of 1901; Proclamation No. 17 of 1902. Northern Nigeria—Proclamation No. 13 of 1900.

  Ad Valorem Stamp Duty on Authorised Capital.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that it is usual in England to allow the payment of the ad valorem duty, under Clause 113 of the Stamp Act, 1891, to remain in abeyance until the capital authorised under the Act of Parliament has been raised, and that a similar course in regard to an Irish undertaking was recently refused, and an intimation given that the Commissioners of Inland
  308
  Revenue had directed proceedings to be instituted for the recovery of the penalties incurred, he will consider how proceedings for the recovery of penalties will affect the investment of capital in enterprises in Ireland and retard the development of its industrial resources, besides increasing the cost of carrying out public works; and whether he will give directions that no proceedings shall be taken in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that in England it is the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue to agree that payment of this duty may remain in abeyance till the capital authorised under the Act of Parliament has been raised. The duty is charged by law upon the authority to create, not upon the raising of capital, and is payable within one month from the date of the passing of the Act authorising the creation of capital. There is no difference in the practice of the Board as between English and Irish undertakings. Proceedings for penalties are less numerous in Ireland than in England, as might be expected, owing to the comparatively small number of companies in Ireland which attract the duty. I can give no such general undertaking to forbid proceedings as is suggested; but if the hon. Member has in mind any particular case which appears to him a hard one I will, on hearing from him, look into the circumstances.

  Imports and Exports for last Half-year.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is the increase of imports and of exports for the first six months of 1903 compared with the figures of last year, and what has been the average annual increase of imports and of exports in the periods 1873–1882, 1883–1892, and 1893–1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) There was a decrease in the value of our imports in the first six months of this year as compared with last of £2,210,000, and an increase of £7,147,051 in our exports of British produce, and of

  309
  £3,229,026 in our re-exports of Foreign and Colonial produce. The figures asked for in the second part of the Question are as follows:—

  Periods.

  Average Annual Value.

  Increase.

  £

  £

  Imports:—

  1873–1882

  383,792,000

  —

  1883–1892

  399,517,000

  15,725,000

  1893–1902

  465,160,000

  65,643,000

  Exports of British Produce:—

  1873–1882

  220,065,000

  —

  1883–1892

  234,203,000

  14,138,000

  1893–1902

  *245,445,000

  11,242,000

  Re-exports of Foreign and Colonial Produce:—

  1873–1882

  58,316,000

  —

  1883–1892

  62,425,000

  4,109,000

  1893–1902

  61,509,000

  (-) 916,000

  * Excluding the value of new ships and their machinery, not recorded before 1899.

  Scotland to Killeshandra—Delays in Transit.
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland Great Western Railway Company refuses to give a through rate from Killeshandra to Scotland except viâ Dublin, which is over 100 miles further from Killeshandra than viâ Belfast, and delays by at least twenty-four hours the delivery of perishable goods such as pork, butter, and eggs in hot weather; and, if so, will the Board of Trade use its powers to compel this company to send goods from Killeshandra to Scotland viâ Belfast at through rates when requested by the consigners to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to this Question. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland has received a complaint to the effect stated, and will make inquiry into the matter.

  Postal Facilities at Drumquin, County Tyrone.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the public and traders by the insufficient postal facilities of the village of Drumquin, County Tyrone; and if so whether he will accede to the request of the inhabitants and grant them a day mail service.
  310
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am already making inquiry upon the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Telephonic Communication at Mill Hill.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether there is any obstacle to establishing telephonic communication in and with Mill Hill; and, if not, whether he can indicate an approximate date at which this can be done.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Inquiry is now being made as to the most suitable position for an exchange to serve a large district including Mill Hill, but, owing to the amount of construction work involved in the connection of exchanges in suburban districts with the London system, it is impossible for me to name any date for its opening.

  Superannuated Irish Medical Officers.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the number of Irish medical officers who have been superannuated under the existing Local Government Acts; in how many cases these grants were made voluntarily; and whether the guardians in any case refused; and if so, in how many such cases was superannuation so refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Under Section 118 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, eighteen medical officers have received superannuation allowances. The local authorities are obliged to grant pensions in the case of all officers qualified as provided by the section.

  Farms on the Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps will be taken to prevent the taking of farms on the Cusack Estate, County Longford, pending the completion of the arrangements for sale to the tenants; whether he is aware that efforts are being made to settle planters on this property to the exclusion of the native owners; and, if so, will he represent to the receiver the

  311
  necessity of not completing any of these lettings till the present Land Bill is passed into law.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The receiver has no power to complete any lettings. These can only be made by the Land Judge to such persons and upon such terms as shall appear to him to be most advantageous to the persons interested in the estate.

  Transit of Butter from Killeshandra to Scotland—Alleged Neglect.
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland as to the manner in which a consignment of butter from Killeshandra to Forth was treated by the Midland Great Western Railway Company on the 4th July; and that this butter was put into a dirty cattle waggon at Crossdoney, which had not been cleansed after being used for the conveyance of cattle; and, if so, will he state what steps, if any, have been taken against this railway company.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Department has received a complaint of the character mentioned, and is making inquiry into the matter.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said that on the Money Resolution passed by the House in Committee on Friday last he made a general statement on questions of finance affecting the Bill; and he did not, therefore, now propose to repeat it. Of course, if any hon. Member wished to ask any further questions on points of finance, he should be glad to attempt to deal with them. He then stated the total sum that was asked for; the total sum to be spent; and the total estimated cost of the whole of the works in the
  312
  schedule of the Bill. He also stated that, as far as they could now anticipate, they hoped that of this series of Acts this Bill was final as regarded the items. The present Board of Admiralty saw no reason to suggest new items to be added. He also stated that the total estimate of the cost was not final. He proposed to give a few particulars as to that when he came to the items. He further stated the list of the new works which they proposed in the schedule. He thought it would now be convenient if he made a general statement of the progress of the existing works; and also made a short statement as to the reasons why the new items were introduced. In the matter of progress, he thought he might claim that the general progress made in the existing works was, on the whole, satisfactory. Of the £6,500,000 voted two years ago for two years' work, there remained unspent £574,000. That was rather a large sum, but he thought he could show the House that there were particular reasons, which could not well have been foreseen, which accounted for that under-expenditure. On several items there had been over-expenditure; but the balance was as he had stated. There had been a considerable sum overspent. That was to say, that certain works had made more progress than was anticipated or allowed for. On Gibraltar, Dover, Hong-Kong, Keyham, and the Britannia College, they had spent more money than they had anticipated. The House had frequently expressed, as he thought, the proper and business-like opinion that where a contract was issued, and the money voted by the House, to carry out an important naval work, the sooner it was executed the better The House having definitely authorised the expenditure of the money, it was the business of the Admiralty to speed it as fast as they could. Therefore, he said advisedly, that they had succeeded in making more rapid progress, including more rapid expenditure, on those particular works than they anticipated.
  There were other works in which progress had not been so rapid as had been anticipated. These works included the Malta breakwater. That followed the principle of all new projects—namely, that they were very difficult to start. They were constantly making

  313
  allowance for that in those Bills, but they did not seem to be able to make allowance enough. When once a work got into swing, then expenditure was comparatively rapid; but the preparation of the plans, the bringing of the contractor's plant on to the ground, and the innumerable matters to be attended to, always caused much delay in the commencement. He was glad to say that the contract had now been let, and he hoped that the work would proceed with ordinary rapidity. For the deepening of harbours and approaches there was a small under-expenditure, not very considerable. In the case of Colombo Dock there had been slight retardation. That was a matter in which the Admiralty were not directly concerned. The Colonial Government were constructing the dock and the Admiralty were making payments suited to their expenditure. In regard to the Malta Dockyard extension there had been considerable delay, and the underspending amounted to £207,000. The reason was that there had been great difficulty in consequence of infiltration. The contractor had not allowed sufficient pumping plant, and he understood that when the necessity for increasing that plant was discovered, it was done rather piecemeal. That had caused considerable delay, though no expense, to the Admiralty. He hoped the difficulty was now mainly overcome. The work was now making reasonable progress. At Bermuda there had been some delay on account of a strike, but they were pressing on with the work, and it was now making fair progress. At Simon's Bay there had been delay, due to the war and the scarcity of labour in South Africa. They had not been able to make the progress which they anticipated with the new coaling item which was added to the Act last year. There were £300,000 underspent on that item. That was mainly due to the fact that they were new works, and to its being impossible to start these works all over the world simultaneously. On the whole the progress was satisfactory. They had made considerable progress at Hong-Kong in connection with the coaling item. He did not wish to weary the House with too many details, but he should be glad to answer
  314
  any question with regard to the progress of any particular item. The Portsmouth barracks and magazine items were both somewhat behindhand. The Portsmouth barracks were now nearly completed, but there had been some change in the plans on account of the new scheme of training and the increase in the number of men allotted to the barracks. It was difficult to make rapid progress with the magazine item because constant changes in ammunition, and in the policy which was to be followed as to reserves all over the world, made modifications necessary. At Gibraltar the detached mole and the new mole were now completed, except for a little work at the head. The commercial mole would be completed by the end of the year. One dock was practically complete, and the foundation and side walls of the other two docks were nearly finished. So good progress was being made.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if there had been any infiltration at Gibraltar.
  *MR. PEETYMANsaid there had not been any infiltration at Gibraltar. When the work was first proposed an eminent engineer prophesied that they might as well try to pump out the North Atlantic, but, as a matter of fact, although at Malta they had had great difficulty, at Gibraltar there had been practically none. There had been very considerable criticism in the public Press with regard to Hong-Kong, apparently largely founded on a statement that the work at Hong-Kong was making very slow progress, and that special difficulties in the matter of foundations were being encountered by the contractors. That statement was entirely without foundation. Indeed, measuring progress by expenditure, they actually had spent £170,000 beyond the estimated expenditure; so the progress was exceptionally good.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the foundations of the dock at Hong-Kong were really good and adequate.
  *MR. PEETYMANsaid, so far as they had gone, no special difficulties had been

  315
  encountered. The work had not yet reached the stage when it could be stated that there would be no difficulty with the foundations; but they had every reason to believe that the foundations would be perfectly satisfactory, and no reason to suppose the contrary. He had no hesitation whatever in making that statement. They could not be perfectly certain as yet. At Chatham the progress was extremely good; but they had now encountered very considerable difficulty through water finding its way in from the adjoining basin. It was impossible in great engineering works of that kind to definitely anticipate that there would be no difficulty; but so far as they could judge nothing unusual need be anticipated as regarded Hong-Kong. There had been considerable correspondence—and the matter had been noticed in the Press—in regard to a proposal that the entire naval establishment at Hong-Kong should be removed to another site. The whole object of that proposal was purely commercial and colonial. From a naval point of view, there was no site as good as that which they now occupied. He thought it would be contrary to all precedent—and he could not suppose that the House would sanction such an operation—to vote an enormous sum of money in order to remove an efficient dockyard from a site where it was properly defended, on an island that was a strategical necessity, to, perhaps, a less eligible site which would have to be defended, merely with the object of enabling the colony to extend their commercial establishments and marine parade.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the works and stores were all on the island.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid they were. There was a time when there was a naval ground on which it was considered desirable to remove the naval establishment at Hong-Kong. They then had only five or six acres of land, but now they had nearly forty acres of land, and they had room enough for the naval establishment, for the necessary stores, and for the long dock which was being constructed. There was also a clear site for another long dock for the largest vessels, should it be necessary at any time to construct one. There was some congestion in the ordnance establishment
  316
  at Hong-Kong—there was still a joint ordnance establishment for the Navy and the Army. But a committee of naval officers had selected a site on the island for a new ordnance establishment; and negotiations would shortly be commenced for establishing an ordnance depôt on that new site. He hoped they would then have more room at the dockyard, and that the ordnance establishment would be placed on a satisfactory basis. The naval coaling station was established on the mainland. Although that site was suitable for a coaling station, it would not be suitable for a naval dockyard, because there was a difficulty about the water and the anchorage, dredging would be required, and, as they had good reason to know, the price of the land was enormous. They had to pay an exaggerated price for land for a coaling place. Indeed, one would think that the land was in the City of London. They placed the matter in the hands of the colonial Government, who obtained the best value they could, but it entailed a very heavy charge. He thought he need not particularise further.
  He would now explain the reasons why increases were proposed in existing items included in the schedule of the Bill. When the Resolution was being debated last week a remark was made that these items were constantly increased without notice to the House. That was not quite the case, because it had been constantly stated as a matter of policy that in regard to three items included in the Act the total estimates were not final, and that increases would be necessary. Those items were the deepening of harbours and approaches, coaling, and magazines. Those three items all included a large number of separate services, and it was found impossible to give a final and conclusive total estimate of the whole cost which might be covered by them. But the control of the House was preserved by the fact that no items were undertaken within any particular two years covered by the Act which could not be covered by the total estimate already approved and included in the Act. The increase in the item for deepening harbours and approaches was to cover the general scheme of dredging which had been already approved. With the approval

  317
  of the House they had embarked on the policy of purchasing a large and efficient dredging plant, and that policy had been amply justified. There was, perhaps, no item of works on which there was such an extraordinary difference between the cost of doing the work by contract and doing it themselves as there was on dredging. He thought possibly the explanation largely was that the insurance on dredgers was extraordinarily heavy. They did not insure their dredgers, but, fortunately, they had met with very few accidents. He would give the House an instance which would show the remarkable character of the difference. A large work was now going on at Keyham, where about £4,000,000 was being spent on dockyard extension. A great quay wall was being put down in what was now shallow water. The access to that quay would have to be deepened by a very large dredging scheme, something like 4,000,000 yards of rock and mud having to be removed. It was desired, if possible, in order to make more progress with the other works, to have the dredging done by the contractor. It was always better to have the whole work in one hand rather than to have one party dredging and another going on with the other work. The lowest tender which could be obtained from the contractor was £565,000. Before obtaining the tender the Admiralty had placed one of their new dredgers on the work in order to ascertain at what cost they could do it themselves. They found that, taking the results of that, experiment as a basis, they could execute the work with their own plant for £114,000. He should qualify those figures by saying that favourable circumstances were assumed, and that if they met with hard rock which had to be blasted, which they did not anticipate, a further £50,000 might be involved. He thought the House would see that the cost of the dredging plant, which was the best in the world, was amply justified.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked what the increase was under this head.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was £200,000, which was almost exactly the same increase as last year. The increase was
  318
  necessary in order to enable the whole of the present dredging plant to be worked at full power and, in view of their having decided to do this great work at Keyham, to purchase one more complete set of dredging plant. The increase on the coaling item was £250,000. A round sum of £1,000,000 was taken last year. The House was then informed that that was not absolutely final, but that no more works would be undertaken than could be completed within the estimate. That pledge had been fulfilled, but it was now necessary to extend the work into other places. For £1,000,000 they would complete Malta, Gibraltar, Hong-Kong, Portland, Wei-hai-wei, Haulbowline, Portsmouth, and Devonport, and also provide a floating depôt. It was now necessary to add to these. He wished to ask the House to sanction a further £60,000 for Portsmouth, as, although the complete scheme could be carried out for £100,000 in accordance with the undertaking which was given last year, the scheme would be considerably improved by the expenditure of a further £60,000. At Sheerness they would require to spend possibly £100,000; Ascension, an important coaling station, they had put down for £65,000, and £16,000 for St. Helena. The importance of the coaling item, he thought, could hardly be exaggerated. The policy had been discussed and approved last year, and he need not therefore argue it further. There was a very large increase on magazines, amounting to £460,000. That was a fluid item on which proposals were added as necessary. It was now hoped that these proposals were approaching finality, but he could not definitely promise that it would not be necessary to extend them. The item responsible for the largest share of the increase, £190,000, was the new magazine at Chatham, in connection with which it was proposed to create a subsidiary establishment, with access to the Medway, at Teapot Hard, about four miles below Chatham, in regard to which they had obtained very excellent facilities for shipping ordnance stores and ammunition. It was also in contemplation, in connection with that establishment, to transfer a part of the stores which were now kept at Woolwich to that site. At present there was a very great congestion at Woolwich owing to the Army

  319
  and Navy stores both being kept in the same magazine, and Chatham was a far better site from their point of view. At Priddy's Hard a further expenditure would be necessary. A Committee had recently been examining into the question of the magazine at Priddy's Hard, and considerable changes would be necessary there. At Gibraltar, where the cost of the magazine work had been larger than was anticipated, further increases were necessary.
  There were considerable increases on all the items for naval barracks. None of these increases were due to the works costing more than had been anticipated. They were almost all solely due to increased accommodation and to changes of policy. At Chatham the accommodation originally provided for and covered by the Vote two years ago was for 3,730 men. It was now increased to 4,858 men. At Portsmouth there was additional accommodation for 1,464 men, and at Keyham additional accommodation for 648 men. Besides that, owing to the abolition of masts and yards training, it had become necessary to erect gymnasia in connection with all these establishments. He would quote to the House from The Blue Jacket, a paper which circulated largely on the lower deck, to show how the policy of substituting barracs fork hulks had been appreciated by the lower deck. The Blue Jacket, referring to the new accommodation at Chatham, said—
  "That as compared with the old it was like comparing Heaven with hell."
  That was a strong lower deck expression which he hoped the House would forgive him for repeating. On the Chatham naval barracks there was an increase of £70,000, on Portsmouth naval barracks £120,000, and on these at Keyham £50,000. There was also an increase of £50,000 on the Chatham Naval Hospital, which now provided 600 beds, and there were some additional residences to be provided for and other requirements. He believed that the hospital, when it was completed, would be as well equipped as any existing hospital in the United Kingdom It had been visited by many competent judges connected with London hospitals, and the arrangements met with their unqualified approval. On the Britannia Naval College there was an increase
  320
  of £60,000. This was mainly due to the extra wing which would have to be built in order to accommodate the larger number of cadets who would have to be housed owing to the new scheme of entry and training in the Navy. It would also cover the purchase of some additional land which was required in connection with the establishment near the entrance.
  Passing to the new proposals, the first was for the introduction of electricity for power and light into the dockyards He gathered in the previous debate that that met with general approval, and therefore he would not elaborate but he should like to give the House one or two reasons which had moved the Admiralty to adopt that policy. Every one would realise that the present system meant a great distribution of power scattered all over the yard, boilers at very low pressure, and a very great waste of fuel. With the power obtained by electric installation they would be able to have the whole power carried all over the yard with little or no waste of energy. It was impossible, also, to carry on night work without electric light, and if we were unfortunately engaged in a naval war, the dockyards would undoubtedly have to carry on night work. They had inquired as to the experience of many large firms throughout the country of electrical power in their establishments, and that experience was most favourable; generally speaking, the firms told them that their output for the same expenditure of power had increased from 25 to 30 per cent. It was evident that there would be much more room in the shops, that there would be no shafting, no belts, more head-room, and an enormous advantage in the matter of tools, especially in the speed with which tools could be worked. With steam they had to have an average speed, which probably did not suit exactly any tool, but with electricity they could have the exact speed for each tool, and tools could be carried to the work, as the system was extremely flexible, and the power could be carried, not only into the shops, but round the docks and the slips. The Director of Dockyards estimated that the saving in extra economy and efficiency would be little less than 40 per cent. in the dockyards as compared with the present

  321
  system. The Admiralty in dealing with this matter had thought it best to consult a firm of experienced electrical engineers of the highest standing, and had obtained from them a complete scheme, which had been carefully considered also by their own officers, for the establishment of a system for installing electric light and power in each naval establishment. The system had not been dealt with piecemeal, but as a great and consistent whole; sites had been selected in each establishment for the power station, and the scheme allowed a margin for future contingencies and additions if necessary The moment the House approved the expenditure of this money, they would be in a position to put the work under way. The amount asked for this work was £1,500,000; that might not be absolutely final, and if that was not sufficient it might be necessary in two years time to add some small sum.
  With regard to Sheerness, there they had an establishment which had been mainly used for the bull ding and repairing of coastguard vessels, sloops, and small vessels which were now obsolete for war purposes. It could not thus be said that Sheerness really fulfilled a very useful purpose to the Navy of this country. The docks were not now long enough to take a modern destroyer, but with very little lengthening they could be adapted to this purpose. They had a great deal at Sheerness which would be very costly to provide elsewhere, for instance, something like 2,000 trained personnel available for dockyard work. It had been found that by the expenditure of £250,000 they would be able to adapt Sheerness yard for the carrying out of the whole of the large repairs to all the destroyers. There would be a certain number of strategic bases where there would be repairingships, called "mothers" in the Navy, which would have forges and armouries on board, and here the minor repairs to destroyers would be executed, but when the destroyer required to be docked she would be taken to Sheerness and dealt with there. This policy, he believed, would be found to be the most economical, for to deal with destroyers at a large yard, and to put one, or even two, into one of the large docks involved
  322
  an enormous waste of money in pumping out the immense docks which were intended for first-class cruisers and battleships. The specialising of Sheerness to the use of destroyers was really a part of the great policy of specialising to which we were driven by modern requirements. As to torpedo ranges, it was proposed to construct a new torpedo range in the Medway, in close proximity to Teapot Hard, which was now in connection with the Chatham schemes. There was an admirable site there, for there was a tongue of land something over 2,000 yards in length, alongside the river—it would give them a perfectly straight course—and but very little excavation would be required. They also proposed to lengthen the torpedo range at Horsea to 2,000 yards, because the introduction of the gyroscope had so largely lengthened the range of the torpedo. He hoped that the House would realise the added importance which now attached to the torpedo in connection with naval warfare. Every torpedo had to be run thirteen or fourteen times before it was issued and on its return after commission it had to be run again, and consequently considerable space was required for the torpedo establishment in order to keep it up to date. The increase in the fleet had involved an increase in the use of torpedoes, and he could assure the House that the present accommodation was wholly insufficient.
  The next new item was that for gunnery schools, which had been combined with the item formerly described as "Naval Barracks for Medway Gunnery School" in the existing Act. That school they had not yet been able to begin, but in the last few days, he was glad to say, the War Office had seen their way to come to an arrangement with them about the site which they had hoped for. The additional money was for another gunnery establishment at Trevol near Devonport, on the Cornish side of the Hamoage; it was an excellent site of over 100 acres. The number of men it was proposed to provide for in each of those gunnery schools at present was 1,000. With regard to the coastguard stations item, he had gathered that the House agreed that

  323
  it would be desirable to develop our present rental into a charge for extinguishing the cost of acquiring and building stations. This was an item which, although it appeared on this Bill, did not really involve any extra charge. The charges for interest and repayment which would become due on the sum of £500,000 which they proposed to borrow. If it was necessary to increase that sum it would be extended on the same principle. The charge for the payment of interest and the repayment of capital would be no greater than would have to be paid for hiring modern accommodation at all coastguard stations. There were 533 coastguard stations in Great Britain, scattered over remote parts of the coast, and much of the accommodation was of a very inferior character, and to provide sites and erect buildings wherever required would require no little attention and application. They excluded Ireland from this provision, because under the present system the coastguard stations in Ireland were not built out of naval funds, but were put on the Board of Works Vote in the Irish Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. BUCHANANasked whether there would be in future any item for the purchase of coastguard stations?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid there would not be eventually, though it might continue for the next two years. £50,000 only were being taken to start with, but it was expected that the total cost would be at least £500,000, though it would not really add to the annual charge. What the Admiralty now desired was to get the principle approved, and he hoped when the next Works Bill was introduced a final and considered estimate would be placed before the House. The only other new items were in respect of Chatham and Rosyth. The Report of the Berthing Committee specifically referred to both of these items, and reasoned arguments were given showing their necessity. With regard to Chatham, there was at present a very considerable naval establishment there, but it laboured under special disabilities. One special difficulty, owing to the increased size of ships, was the question of the navigation
  324
  of the upper reaches of the Medway leading to the dockyard, and of the entrances to the basin and the docks themselves. The depth in the channel and over the sill was hardly sufficient to afford proper access for modern vessels, and there was an alternative entrance on the upper side which was practically disused. In order to obtain full advantage of the present basin it was necessary to deepen the channel of the Medway for some distance below the lock entrance, and also to provide a further lock entrance. It was proposed to construct another large basin, two lock entrances, and perhaps two additional long docks. There was no question of acquiring land, as they already had on St. Mary's Island an ample area of land available, adjoining the present dockyard, and eminently suited for the purpose. It was impossible without an extension of this character to accommodate all the ships as they were now being built for the Navy. When this new basin and the two long docks had been added, they would have at Chatham an establishment much on the same scale as at Portsmouth and Devonport. The Berthing Committee's Report laid considerable stress on this point, alleging that it was not desirable to increase any existing establishment beyond a certain point. The establishment at Devonport and Portsmouth had already reached the practical limit of economical extension, and the establishment at Chatham was to be on a similar scale. With the additions now proposed Chatham would be brought up to the standard of Portsmouth and Devonport, and would probably employ some 10,000 or 12,000 hands. The amount taken for this work was only £50,000, and he thoroughly understood the complaint that a final and total estimate had not been submitted in the first instance. If Members would carry their minds back to the experience of the past they would see that the submission of a total estimate at this stage invariably resulted in additions and alterations at a later date. He had with him the statement made in connection with the Naval Works Bill of 1897 by the present Postmaster-General, from which it appeared that in connection with the works at Dover an original estimate of £1,900,000 had to be increased to

  325
  £3,500,000. The £50,000 now asked for was to enable the Admiralty to complete their plans and to make the necessary surveys, and the total estimate would be submitted when the next Works Bill was introduced two years hence.
  With regard to the item of Rosyth, the new naval base in the Firth of Forth, there was a short discussion on the Resolution stage which aroused considerable interest. He could assure the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who objected to this base on strategical grounds, that the matter had been most carefully considered, and the naval advisers of the Admiralty were of opinion on strategical grounds that the base was admirably situated, ft occupied a commanding position in reference to the North Sea, and—what nowadays was of some importance in reference to a naval base for strategic purposes—it was a considerable distance from any torpedo station which could be occupied by any possible enemy. It was not now, as it used to be, desirable to be within easy range of the enemy's station. One of the most important things in future naval wars, he believed, according to the opinion of naval officers, would be to obtain rest for the crews and for any nerves which naval ratings could permit themselves to have. If the anchorage of a fleet was within striking distance of, and accessible to, the destroyers or submarines of a possible enemy it was quite impossible for the crews to obtain real rest. The Firth of Forth also had the advantage that it was already a defended station. Moreover, it was in the immediate proximity of coal and iron, which was an enormous advantage in questions of construction or repairs. A further advantage of having a naval base in Scotland was that they hoped to obtain more recruits for the Navy from that part of the country. No better recruits could possibly be found than those to be obtained from the East and West coasts of Scotland, but a great bar to recruiting at present was that any recruit from Scotland had to join a ship which commissioned on the South coast, so that when the ship came home for purposes of leave he had to go, at great expense and loss of time, from the South of England to, perhaps, the North of Scotland. That would be obviated if he could join a ship which commissioned from a naval base in Scotland. It was hoped that this would be a great incentive A further important
  326
  advantage was that there would be no great expenditure on dredging. The item for the deepening of harbours and approaches showed the enormous expenditure which had to be incurred in connection with existing harbours, which were originally occupied by smaller vessels, in order that those harbours might accommodate modern ships. When it was realised that a modern first-class cruiser required thirty acres of water to swing, the House would see what a very large area of deep water was required for modern vessels. That area was available on the Forth without any additional expenditure.
  It having been decided to establish the base it became necessary to acquire a site, and in this matter the Admiralty had kept in view the history of the existing dockyards, from which it was seen that the greatest difficulty with which the Admiralty had had to contend in recent years was that of extension. The Admiralty had therefore decided to acquire in the first instance a sufficient area of land to allow for any possible extensions which would be required in the future. An area of 1,400 or 1,500 acres, including land and foreshore, had been acquired, and that would be amply sufficient and to spare for any possible establishment. He was very much pressed on a former occasion to state exactly what the Admiralty proposed to do and the establishments they would erect. He would tell the House what the Admiralty proposed to do, but he could not say exactly what works they proposed to erect. They were sending this month to Rosyth Colonel Exham, who for the last eight years had been in charge of the Admiralty establishment at Portsmouth, and than whom there was probably no one in the country better acquainted with the requirements of a large naval establishment from the works point of view. This officer was proceeding to Rosyth, and he would put upon paper a comprehensive plan showing the sites and the details of all the different establishments which would or might be required for a great naval base on the scale of Portsmouth or Plymouth. The country had suffered because the existing dockyards had originally been laid out on too small a scale. They proposed to have this dockyard laid out on paper as if it were going to be a naval establishment on the largest scale provided with all possible known requirements.

  327
  Having got this plan, it did not follow that the present, or even the next, Beard of Admiralty were going to provide for anything approaching all these requirements. They would decide what were the present needs, and these would be provided with reference to the final and completed whole, so that if any future Board of Admiralty decided to add to them they would find that what existed could be added to without any interference with one item or the other. All the works would be so constructed that they could be individually extended at the least possible cost, and without interfering with the site of any other building. Borings would be necessary, because the sites of the docks and basins would largely depend on the depth of the mud that lay on the rocks. Until Colonel Exham's report was received it would not be possible to make a start with the works. Having received it, the first work would be the erection of barracks, training school, and hospital, and while these were in progress the question of the construction of docks and basins could be considered. It would not be right at this stage for the present Board of Admiralty to pledge their successors to any definite policy as to the erection of these works.
  The starting of a new dockyard was an interesting occasion. He thought it might interest the House to hear a few words as to the history of the existing dockyards. He did not wish to labour this point, but he had found one or two interesting things upon this point. His hon. friend behind him had stated that his precedents did not go quite far enough back. Portsmouth dockyard was the oldest in the country. It was supposed to have been founded by King Alfred; at any rate King John on the 20th of May, 1212, ordered works to be undertaken for the enclosure of the docks there. The order was addressed to the Sheriffs of Southampton, and it was as follows—
  "We order you without delay by the hands of lawful men to cause our docks at Portsmouth to be enclosed with a good and strong wall for the preservation of our ships and galleys; and likewise to cause pent-houses to be made in the same walls in which all our ships' tackle may be safely kept. Use as much despatch as you can in order that the same
  328
  may be completed this summer lest in the ensuing winter our ships and galleys and their rigging should incur any damage by your default; and when we know the cost it shall be accounted to you."
  Apparently there were difficulties in getting money in those days. In 1663 Mr. Pepys, who was then Secretary to the Admiralty, inspected the site of a wet dock at Chatham. He said—
  "The place is likely to be a very tit place when the King hath money to do it with."
  He apparently found some considerable difficulty in raising the £10,000 necessary for its construction.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the hon. Gentleman could give him some estimate of the cost of the new dockyard and arsenal at Rosyth. He also asked why the cost of the new establishment at Osborne was not included in the Bill.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was quite impossible to give even an approximate estimate of the cost of the new dockyard at Rosyth. It depended entirely on what policy was adopted in the future. They were going to take this survey, but whatever was done now would be done as part of a great and comprehensive whole. All he could say at this stage was that the Admiralty would come down and propose complete works and give a final estimate for those works which they proposed to construct. Whether some future Board of Admiralty would propose other works it was impossible for him to say. With regard to Osborne they did not propose to construct any large permanent building like the Britannia College, and such work as was being done would be met out of the ordinary expenditure of the year.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked why the Britannia Royal Naval College was included in the Bill while the Osborne establishment was left out.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the reason was that Britannia College was a large and substantial building, while the Osborne naval establishment was built upon an entirely different principle. He explained on Vote 10 what they proposed to

  329
  construct at Osborne was not a large permanent building because that would give them no elasticity or capacity for extension.
  *MR SPEAKER: If the Osborne establishment is not in this Bill it is not desirable to discuss it.
  *MR. PRETYMANpointed out that Britannia College was included in the Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid all he wished to know was why Osborne had not been included in the Bill.
  *MR. PRETYMANreplied that the Osborne establishment was built upon a different principle and there was no borrowed money in connection with its construction, and it was being done out of the ordinary expenditure of the year. He thanked the House for listening to so many wearisome details which he had had to inflict upon hon. Members. Reference had been made to the extremely heavy outlay upon these works, but the House would see that this great expenditure was merely part of a considered policy in regard to the increase of the Navy and the increased efficiency of the Navy, and this part was absolutely necessary to the whole. If they looked back into the past they would see that the ships of a century ago were able to equip themselves in a very different way. Unlike the ship of a century ago, which could refit at sea from captured ships or forests along the coast, and could be kept at sea for two or three years together, the modern ship was entirely dependent on specialised articles and specialised stores and upon scientific equipment of various kinds which could not be improvised, and unless she had within reach a naval base where these articles could be found she was useless for the purposes of war. Take one item alone—that of gunpowder. In the old days there was one particular brand of gunpowder which everybody used, and if one of the King's ships captured an enemy's ship there was the same powder found upon it. At the present time there was a different powder in every service and almost for every different gun. If they wished
  330
  to use those particular guns they must provide the proper ammunition for them wherever the ships happened to be. He was thoroughly aware that there was only a certain sum of money available to maintain the Navy, and that everything that was spent on works meant so much less upon ships. Upon this point he thought he could hardly do better in conclusion than read a short statement which dealt with this very part of the question. The Intelligence Department of the Admiralty had said that—
  "To add to the number of our ships without providing corresponding means to maintain them in sea-keeping condition would not add to the efficiency of the Navy, but rather the reverse, as an excessive strain thrown on its deficient resources would probably react on the general condition of the Fleet."
  That was the true view. The works policy did not originate with the Works Department of the Admiralty, as had been suggested; it was the result of the demands of the Navy, and although the expense was heavy, he did not believe there was one proposal in the Bill that was not absolutely necessary to maintain the efficiency of the Fleet.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought it was to be regretted that there had not been a larger attendance of Members to listen to the full, the interesting, and the important statement that had been made by the Civil Lord. As far as he could estimate the Parliamentary and probably the public interest in this vastly important Bill, he thought it had diminished rather than increased since the first step was taken in Committee of Ways and Means. It was said that the small attendance and absence of interest in this Bill meant that hon. Members were satisfied with it, but he did not take any such consoling view. He believed the real explanation of this absence of interest was that the majority of hon. Members on both sides were unwilling to grapple with great technical difficulties and were absolutely indifferent in regar to the expenditure of money. The hon. Gentleman said that the sub stance of the Bill was in the schedule. This time there was something in the body of the Bill which would want some attention from the Committee. He did

  331
  not know whether the House knew that there was a proposal to extend the time during which, under the original scheme, the whole of the liabilities under the Naval Works Acts should be repaid. The new expenses, at least, were now to be paid by annuities, terminable in fifty-five years after the date on which the expenditure was incurred. The payment of the money was, therefore, spread over a longer time, though the annual burden would be less, but considering what they were doing in other Departments in piling up liabilities for posterity, he would rather that the repayment in this case were to take place within a shorter period. That must be a matter for the consideration of the Committee. This schedule of the Bill was really, as on every occasion when such a Bill was brought forward, the part to which the House could alone give any considerable attention. The new items did require more consideration this year, and, in particular, the projects for dockyard extension associated with Rosyth and Chatham. These called for most grave consideration on the part of the House in Committee. He would say at once in regard to this policy of dockyard extension that it could not but be disappointing to many of them that this very large additional outlay should be necessary. Anyone who looked at the schedule of this Bill would see what enormous expenditure on dockyards and harbours had already been authorised at many places. The sum Parliament had already authorised the Admiralty to spend on what was really housing accommodation for the Fleet amounted to no less than £23,000,000. That enormous expenditure having been provided for the stowage of ships since 1895, it was a source of disappointment that further provision should have to be made. But they were in a difficulty in this matter. How was one even to criticise the deliberate proposals of the Admiralty which were founded upon knowledge which could not possibly be possessed by hon. Members, and upon an examination of facts and circumstances which they could not possibly know?
  The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Report of the Berthing Committee. He was afraid that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing that all the Members who listened to
  332
  him had read that Report. He doubted if many had read it. It was a pretty stiff Report to read, and it added to the difficulty he had in endeavouring to criticise the new proposals at all. The Committee was appointed to consider the question of accommodation for the growing Fleet, and this was the result of their examination and consideration of the matter. They found that the present naval ports were insufficient for the accommodation of the Fleet, and that other harbourage could only be partially utilised. At page 14 of the Report they gave a list of ships which must be accommodated in naval ports. He would not go into this now, but there they were, and it seemed to him a reasonable statement, and one which it was very difficult to find fault with. The Committee stated that that Fleet would not have the accommodation it would require, unless this new policy of dockyard extension was carried into effect. There were one or two points which suggested themselves to him on this question. One was that they had dwelt a good deal during this session upon the increased Vote for new construction at large, and the increased Vote for repairs. A point that had not been dwelt upon in connection with these matters was that the increases had gone to private contractors. The policy with regard to that was very clearly laid down in the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, with which their proceedings this year commenced. It mentioned the employment on a larger scale of private contractors, both in building and repairing, as a policy which was to be encouraged by the Admiralty. But the figures were somewhat remarkable. Last year most of the new shipbuilding was given out to private contractors. It went up by £1,000,000 as compared with the year before, but this year it was a good deal more than a million in excess of last year. If they compared the Estimates this year with those of two years ago they would find that the new shipbuilding going to private yards had increased by something like £2,250,000. In regard to repairs, the difference was almost startling. Three years ago, to go no farther back, one item in the Estimates—he thought it was Item E in the Contract section—

  333
  stood at £93,000. That was the amount that went to private yards, but this year under that head the sum was £722,000. This policy, they understood, was to be extended, and he should like to have some explanation of it. He should have thought that the increased amount of work, both original work and repairing, which was given out to private yards, would have relieved the situation in the naval ports, but instead of that they had this policy of employing private yards going on concurrently with the providing of increased accommodation for naval ports. That was a point on which the hon. Gentleman might have something to tell the House.
  In this and previous sessions the House had granted to the Admiralty enormous sums for the manufacture of new ships. This year the Admiralty came forward and told them that these new ships which had been sanctioned would be of no use to the Navy unless they provided the additional dockyard accommodation now asked for. On the first point, he for one had not found it possible to accept the mere estimate of the Admiralty as a sufficient reason for larger demands in naval construction. He had said again and again that this depended upon policy for which the Admiralty were not answerable, but with regard to which those who were answerable had so far given no adequate reply. Therefore, so far as the substance of this new policy of extension was concerned, while he took no responsibility for the causes that had led to it, he frankly admitted that from his point of view it was hardly possible to contest the decision at which the Admiralty on its own responsibility had arrived. Now he came to the items of this new extension. The item relating to Rosyth was that which had brought so large a proportion of his colleagues in the representation of Scotland to this debate to-day. They formed a good majority of the House at the present moment. He did not think he was doing his colleagues any injustice in making that suggestion. His hon. friend the Member for East Perthshire had put down a Motion challenging the Second Reading of the Bill on the ground that full financial estimates had not been made.
  334
  He should like to say a word or two in regard to the defence made by the Civil Lord of the line of action followed on this occasion both in respect of Rosyth and Chatham. They had what is called a "total vote"—only a statement of the probable expenditure. The issue raised by his hon. friend was that the Admiralty ought to have prepared, not conclusive, or absolutely exact, or final estimates, but some rough estimates, at all events, of the total financial effect of their now proposals. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the case of Dover, and said that when it was put in the first Naval Works Bill a comparatively small amount was allowed. He would remind the House that Dover was pushed into that Bill by this House; it was not in the first draft at all. The Government of the day was compelled by the sentiment of the House to allow it to go in, and under those circumstances no estimate was possible. He dared say that the estimate that followed was below the mark. The hon. Gentleman might have chosen as a better illustration the case of Devonport. The estimate made for Devonport had been largely exceeded, but it was at all events an official estimate. It was made by those responsible for such things to the Admiralty of the day. He had charge of the Bill in question and he could say that with full assurance. He thought that the absence in the present state of any estimate at all gave rise to the inference in the first place that there was not only no estimate but no exact and thought-out plan and policy. That had been fully confirmed the other day by what was said by the Civil Lord. He had asked the hon. Gentleman what kind of a naval establishment this was to be? Was it to be a new Portsmouth? Were they going to undertake shipbuilding there or were they only going to effect repairs on the ships which came into the roadstead? He took it that the Government themselves had not yet made up their mind, that they did not know now what they were going to do at Rosyth. That there were to be naval barracks there, was known; but were there to be large construction works, or were they to take it that they did not know? They had bought land enough to enable them and their successors to do anything they liked. Rosyth might be

  335
  at any date a full-blown Portsmouth or not, according to the decision of the Government or the Admiralty—a base for shipbuilding as well as repairing. But the point was, should the House of Commons take what he believed to be an entirely new departure in finance in assenting that day to works of this enormous magnitude, the cost of which was unknown, because the extent of them was unknown? He could understand that where the wages of labour were dubious in future years, or that the cost of the acquisition of land was uncertain, the estimate would have to be more or less guesswork; but the essential element in a case of this kind did not depend on these items at all. It depended upon facts which the House did not know; upon what was going to be done at this new naval base. He agreed thoroughly with the principle which his hon. friend the Member for Perthshire sought to establish by the Amendment he was going to move, that, making all allowance for the imperfection of estimates, the Admiralty should, before the Committee stage was reached, come down and tell the Committee what was the rough approximate estimate of the cost of this new naval base.
  There was another reason why there should be more precision in the estimate. This was not a case where the expenditure was to be incurred once for all. It depended upon what they were going to erect, whether the cost of the new naval establishment would be anything like the annual cost of Portsmouth, or Devonport, or Pembroke, or Chatham. On these grounds they were entitled to more complete information. They ought to have an estimate not only of the cost of the new works but of what the annual cost of the new establishment was likely to be on the naval Votes. He regarded Rosyth from another point of view. The hon. Gentleman had spoken about the excessive price which the congestion of the population in the neighbourhood of the existing dockyards had put upon the land values. But what was the reason for the excessive price given for the land at Rosyth? The hon. Gentleman said nothing of that that day; but in Committee of Ways and Means he told the Committee that the gross rental
  336
  of the estate purchased at Rosyth was £1,622 per annum; and that he was going to take authority, by this Bill, to give for that estate a sum of £122,500, with certain rights reserved to the vendor in respect of minerals. An hon. Gentleman, who had now left the House, had been gibing about the Irish Land Bill, but this far transcended the terms given to the landlord in the Irish Land Bill. It was a transaction which must be further probed and about which more information must be given than the House had yet had. He would ask where the money was to be got for this land purchase? He presumed that it was part of the £200,000 of initial expenditure for the year. [Mr. PRETYMAN was understood to assent.] But coming back to the price, the State was the ultimate owner of all the land in the country, including Rosyth, which it needed for its own purposes. Here was this particular bit of land, bringing in something like £1,600 a year. He did not know the price of agricultural land in that neighbourhood. He should suppose it was worth not more than thirty years purchase. [Mr. T. R. BUCHANAN: Twenty-six years purchase.] Well, he would allow thirty years purchase, and £50,000 would be the outside price in the open market for any private person coming forward seeking to acquire the land. He did not know who the owner was, although he believed it was a noble Lord belonging to Scotland. However, that did not matter so far as his argument was concerned. But the Admiralty had given two-and-a-half times the market value, estimated by the best authorities, for this land. Why had they given so much, and how did they make the contract with the owner of the soil? It was a lucky thing for that owner that the naval policy of the country had taken this new direction; but what the Committee wanted to know was by what manner of procedure did the Admiralty fix this price? Did they send a man down to bargain with the owner, telling him that the land was wanted for the Admiralty and leave him to put his own figure on it? Something of that kind must have been done. Why did the Admiralty not adopt the procedure indicated in the first Naval Works Act

  337
  of 1895? In that Act, foreseeing that the Admiralty would require to purchase land and that the vendor was likely to stand out for a large price, and knowing that the Admiralty had not then the power which the War Office possessed, a clause was inserted in the Act of 1895 which gave the Admiralty the same powers of compulsory purchase which the War Office had. What he wanted to know was why the Admiralty did not proceed to take this land by these compulsory powers, when the price might have been fixed either by a jury or by the alternative system provided for by the Lands Clauses Act? All they had got to do was to make an inquiry, delimit the land, so to speak, pass a Provisional Order by their own authority, and come to the House and ask their assent to the Provisional Order, and then proceed to fix the price by the tribunal provided by the Act. Why was not that course of action taken in this case; and why was this enormous price for apparently a very ordinary bit of Scotch agricultural land to be paid to this noble Lord?
  There was only one other point on which he wished to touch. The hon. Gentleman, in speaking about the progress of the works under the old Acts, told the Committee that there had been more work done in some places than in others and that the saving in one Department was used against the excess expenditure in another Department. The total shortage was £1,500,000. He thoroughly concurred in the principle that the Committee should make allowance for excess expenditure over estimates in regard to great works; but he confessed he was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that considerable progress had been made with the establishment at Keyham. He himself had meant to ask why it was that there was so great delay in the completion of the works at Keyham. It was a big business, but those responsible for the original Bill were advised that the works there would be completed in 1903. He observed that every year the date of the completion of the works was postponed in the Naval Works Bill for a few more years; and now it was said that they were not to be completed till 1906–7. The Committee ought to have
  338
  some explanation of this delay in the completion of the works at Keyham. Now, as to generalities the sum they were going to spend this year under this Bill was £4,000,000 out of the appalling total of £40,000,000. That was the gigantic cost which, although the Navy was intended for the defence of the Empire as a whole, fell wholly on the unhappy inhabitants of this island, because we had practically no contribution from those whom we defended, towards this expenditure—an expenditure which was now so great that all patriotic and sensible men must be becoming alarmed by the possibility of further extension. In face of this unparalleled and terrific expenditure on the Navy, surely they might have expected from the Government some defence of the policy which made the Navy necessary and, at all events, some assurance that they were alive to its dangers and were willing to take the only course which could bring such expenditure to an end—that of inviting other Powers, our alleged rivals, to join in putting an end to this expenditure of public money.
  *MR. BUCHANANsaid he only proposed to deal with the financial and not with the naval aspect of this discussion. Various suggestions had been put forward from time to time as to modes and methods of retrenchment and economy, one of which was that they should go round cap in hand to the colonies for contributions, but his opinion was that expressed by Prince Bismarck, who said in these matters they must each wash their own doorstep. They must act on their own initiative and their own authority, and if they were not willing to do that they were not likely to embark on any effective retrenchment. It seemed to him that they should determine what their own interests were, and that their naval expenditure was commensurate with the financial resources and the needs of their own people. He did not agree with the Civil Lord that there was a total sum for the Navy, and that if more was spent on naval works there would be less to be spent on the Navy. Experience had shown that there was no limit to the sum put into the Naval Works Bill.

  339
  They had to agree to a large initial expense which entailed in succeeding years enormous and consequential increases. He thought if there was one branch of naval expenditure in which retrenchment might be possible, it was with regard to naval works. He quoted Lord Brassey in support of this contention. There were certain new features in this Bill which he thought were bad, and there were old features in it, which were inherent in every Naval Works Bill, which now appeared in an aggravated form. He did not think the House quite realised the length to which they had gone in this policy of Naval works. It was commenced in 1895 and had steadily developed until they had reached this enormous expenditure. He did not wish to discuss again the principle which underlay the Naval Works Bill—viz., to construct works of a permanent character out of borrowed money repayable in thirty years, but he retained the opinion that it would have been better to have adhered to the practice which prevailed in this country down to 1895 except in regard to certain rare cases. He recognised there might be exceptional works to be undertaken which it was necessary to pay for with borrowed money, but, if so, certain conditions should be clearly laid down as to what works came within that category and what did not. It was manifest and agreed to by everybody that they might construct out of borrowed money, and not out of the annual Estimates, works which entailed a large expenditure of money, and which were of a permanent character, and which would benefit the country for the thirty years in the course of which the money was to be paid, but they ought not to construct with borrowed money any works which would perish in the using. There were works put into this Bill which ought to be put on the Estimates and which could not fairly be paid for out of borrowed money. While the Bill of 1895 was brought forward as an exceptional measure this system of annual or biennial Naval Works Bills had become a stereotyped Departmental practice in this country. It had produced an alarm-
  340
  ing and continual increase of naval expenditure, and also resulted in a confusion in the accounts. It was a practice which ought to be deprecated, because it brought in two naval and two military Budgets in one year.
  It had been stated that this Bill was to be final as regards works, but not as regards money, but he heard that statement with considerable scepticism, though he recognised that the Government were beginning to recognise the necessity of putting some limit on this vast and increasing expenditure. He did not think the Civil Lord or his successors would be able to hold their own in this matter, because he had observed that the naval expert had acquired command not only of the tiller but of the till. Efforts of retrenchment would be handicapped by speeches of a most sweeping character delivered in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others who demanded that no limit should be placed on naval expenditure for the defence of this country. His general objection to a good deal contained in this and previous Bills was that the hon. Gentleman and the Admiralty were really endeavouring to save their Votes and put upon loan money which ought to be put upon the Annual Estimates. For instance, the furnishing of electric light and power in the dockyards was a very necessary reform, and, as a layman it was a surprise to him that it had not been introduced before, but that appeared to him to be an item that should not be paid for out of capital but out of annual income, and as such should appear upon the Estimates and not on this Loans Bill. The hon. Gentleman had also spoken of coaling facilities, the amount for which appearing in this Bill was £1,280,000, which was an increase of £250,000 on the estimated cost of 1901. Among the works included in that sum was the construction of a jetty at Haulbowline for coaling purposes, for which they were going to pay, not out of the annual Estimates but apparently out of borrowed money, the repayment of which was to be spread over thirty years. There was also to be an extension of the coaling jetty at Portland. If any hon. Gentleman looked through the Naval Estimates, and studied the details of the Works

  341
  Votes, he would find that these were just the items that should appear upon tie Estimates under the head of works and not be built out of money borrowed, the repayment of which would extend over a generation. Then there was an item for torpedo ranges, for the construction of the new torpedo range and the extension of an existing one. Surely that was expenditure that should be included, as similar expenditure had previously been included, in the annual Estimates. Why was it that the Government were now taking a new financial departure by putting items into the Naval Works Bill which hitherto had been borne on the annual Estimates and paying the expenditure out of borrowed money which ought to be paid out of the annual income.
  Passing to the new works, particularly the extension of Chatham dockyard and the construction of the Firth of Forth base, for the first time since the Naval Works Acts were passed, the House was not told the total estimated cost of these works or when it was expected that they would be completed. He had endeavoured to show that this system of naval works legislation had introduced laxity into our financial control. The Government were now going further and asking them to embark on initial expenditure for works of unlimited extent and duration upon the details of which they themselves had apparently not made up their minds. Surely that was unduly interfering with the control which the House ought to possess, and which, in his opinion, was the best support the Government could have in the direction of economy. He did think the hon. Gentleman, in asking for a grant of money for initial expenditure, should give them at least an approximate estimate of the total cost. That surely was a reasonable and moderate demand. He recognised that it might not be possible to give a final estimate, or even one that could be relied upon for a number of years, but seeing that they were now embarking, as the Civil Lord had said, on one of the most important naval works undertaken during the past two or three centuries, they ought to be informed more in detail what was contemplated by the Admiralty and how much it was proposed to spend during the next two or four years. Column 1
  342
  in the schedule was a very important column, because it gave information as to the amount of their commitments on works that were being undertaken. Those commitments had of late years risen rapidly. The last return showed commitments to the amount of £27,000,000, and the previous one was £23,000,000. In the present year the hon. Gentleman put the figure at £31,000,000. That figure was quite fallacious, for it did not include an estimate for the Rosyth works or the Chatham extension, and he had told them that the eventual expenditure would be nearer £40,000,000 than £30,000,000. Personally, he was inclined to think it would be nearer £50,000,000. There had been a good deal of discussion recently about the National Debt and the means of paying it off, but they were very apt to lose sight of the fact that while on the one hand they were paying off debt they were accumulating it on the other, and in this and the next year they would be spending some £4,000,000 of borrowed money on naval works which would have to be repaid at a future date. What was the history of the Naval Works Bill? The first one was introduced by the Liberal Government in 1895, and the schedule contained only one column, which gave the estimated expenditure on each work for the ensuing year. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite particularly the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, then insisted on having another column showing the total estimated cost of each work, and also fixing a time limit for their completion. In view of the fact that since 1895 they had been in the habit of receiving this information, he hoped the hon. Gentle man would at some later stage be prepared to supply it to the House in regard to these new works. He begged to move "that this House declines to sanction expenditure on new works for the total cost of which an Estimate is not, as has hitherto been the practice, included in the Bill."
  MR. EUGENE WASONseconded the Motion, and suggested that the Government should inquire into the feasibility of making a canal from the Forth to the

  343
  Clyde. Such a canal would be of enormous importance from a strategic point of view. The constituency which he represented was naturally very interested in this question, and he held in his hand a copy of a memorial from the Provost, Councillor and Magistrates of Alloa, addressed to the Secretary for Scotland, asking him to bring this matter before Parliament. The construction of such a canal would save vessels the necessity of going round by Pentland Firth; it would, in fact, shorten the distance by hundreds of miles. There were no engineering difficulties to be overcome, and the financial problem could be easily solved if the Government would guarantee say 2½ per cent. on the capital required. He wished to know why the Government had paid such an enormous price for the land at Rosyth. He had calculated that it represented something like eighty years' purchase, and it certainly required some explanation.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House declines to sanction expenditure on new works for the total cost of which an estimate is not, as has hitherto been the practice, included in the Bill,'"—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he assumed that there was going to be a new naval base and a dock yard, possibly of very large dimensions, at Rosyth, although it was not possible at the moment to give an approximate estimate of the cost. It seemed to him inevitable that we should have a new naval dockyard.
  Though, no doubt, they would continue to hear speeches deprecating the immense expenditure incurred in connection with the Navy, he was afraid there was no escape from the expenditure in front of them. He was pretty well acquainted with the dockyards of the country, and he believed that in most cases they had reached their limits of economic expansion. The question was, were they to go in for a policy of building their ships in Government yards or were they to build them
  344
  in private yards? His view was that in time of war the Government dockyards would be required for repairing purposes, but he considered it was essential that in time of peace the Government should build more of their own ships in their own yards. It was not prudent to depend entirely on the services of private firms, because in times of great stress there might be a dislocation of trade or an upheaval in the labour market which might have the effect of damaging and embarrassing naval preparations, and the necessity for speed with which they might be confronted; and they there fore should not allow construction to pass out of Government hands into the hands of private contractors. He would like to make his protest against the principle of giving out so much work to contractors, and to associate himself with those who desired to see more work done and larger provision made for further work in Government establishments. If the Government dockyards were all full now it stood to reason that we must have another one somewhere. He believed Rosyth would be a good place for a dockyard. He knew that the hon. Member for King's Lynn objected to it on strategical grounds, and had quoted Captain Mahan as his authority for the contention that all our naval bases should be on the South Coast. But at the time Captain Mahan wrote his books, the Russian and German navies had not become so important an element as they now were in the situation. They had, in fact, completely altered that situation, and had per-haps made it necessary for us to have a naval base on the East Coast of Scotland. He also could quote a passage from Captain Mahan supporting his view. It was a passage insisting on the importance of the fleets being near at hand to depôts from which they could replenish their stores. Let them do what they could with the existing dockyards—and he was in favour of making them of the greatest use—but they must sooner or later have another one somewhere, and in spite, of the strategical objections that had been raised, he maintained that Rosyth supplied the qualifications and advantages which justified the Government in adopting it. They ought to be prepared to make very large concessions,

  345
  and to give considerable licence to the Government to make the preliminary investigations which they trusted would result in material advantage to the country.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, in reference to the money proposed to be spent upon the defence of Dover, he had always considered Dover to be a complete fraud, because it was no use, and was not fit even for a secondary base. With regard to Rosyth, the strategic importance of which he did not regard as very great, if it were true, as had been stated over and over again, that the Government had given eighty years purchase for the land it was the most outrageous scandal ever disclosed to that House. His opinion was that Rosyth was not in a good position even for a secondary base—that was to say, a coal-keeping, biscuit-keeping, slight-repair-making naval base—and that it was eminently unfitted to be a base for arsenal and constructional purposes. The whole question was the value of the place as a strategic point, and that he considered to be very small indeed. A sum of £200,000 was put down for Rosyth, but that conveyed no idea of what was the final expenditure which would be incurred for dockyard and arsenal purposes. As to Dover, it was perfectly monstrous that, they should be induced to spend three and a half millions upon it. No naval commander in his senses would allow any fleet to go anywhere near Dover, unless it was going at full speed and in daylight. They had Chatham round the corner and Portsmouth close at hand, and Plymouth a little further on. There was not the slightest defence for the expenditure of this money at Dover, and this proposal seemed to him to be the conclusion arrived at by some sea-sick passenger to the Admiralty who came over on a bad day. The condition of Gibraltar was another serious scandal. All these scandals he traced to the Works Department of the Admiralty, an extremely extravagant Department, far from being as capable as it should be, which, having to do with an extremely well-intentioned but weak First Lord, really overrode him and dictated to him in the most amazing manner. He was not going to
  346
  dwell at any length upon Gibraltar. They were asked to sanction an expenditure of £5,000,000 to make Gibraltar not stronger but weaker. They had made it less able to maintain itself as a fortress, and they had made it a most tempting objective to an enemy which might wish to deal a blow at England in time of war.
  That Bill provided for a total expenditure of £31,640,859. The Civil Lord told them that the items were final. But that did not console him. What he wanted to know was whether there was any finality in the total. It did not console him to be told that they were not new items. He wanted to know what finality there was about the sum the House was pledging itself to, and the answer to this question was conspicuously and completely absent from anything the hon. Gentleman had said. There was an item in the schedule, subhead (b), "deepening harbours and approaches," of £1,300,000, and a footnote explained that this was "exclusive of the cost of dredging plant purchased prior to 31st March, 1895." Why exclude that cost if it was part of the total expenditure? There was £2,500,000 for Simon's Ray dockyard extension, in regard to which an expenditure estimated at £8,300 was incurred during 1896–7 to 1898–9, which was charged to Vote 10 in those years; at Portsmouth there was an extra sum of £40,466 taken for widening the caisson, in addition to a similar sum expended in 1902; and finally he came to the most flagrant case of all, namely, Rosyth, which figured for £200,000, as to which they were told "this is a token sum only, and does not represent the total estimated cost." What would the Rosyth dockyard and arsenal cost them? They knew what Gibraltar cost. There they had not to pay for the land, but nevertheless the dockyard at Gibraltar cost them £5,000,000 to enlarge. Here they put down £200,000 for the naval establishment at Rosyth, but that sum conveyed no adequate idea or estimate to the House of the final expenditure to be incurred. Take the Chatham dockyard extension, for which £50,000 was taken. That sum would be enormously increased, and they had not got even an approximation of the amount which the country would be asked to spend upon either of these enormous undertakings. He really did think that

  347
  it was a very extraordinary thing for the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House of Commons and ask hon. Members to authorise the enormous expenditure asked for in this Bill. He was contracting an increasing disquietude with regard, not only to the amount of their obligations, but also to the manner in which they were being piled upon them. This method of Naval Works Bills was an improper method on the face of it, and it was originally introduced upon the excuse that it would only be done once, and would never occur again. Since the present Ministry came into power, this method had been adopted again and again, and it would recur. This was a very serious matter. He had already pointed out the total at present authorised to be spent by this monstrously extravagant Works Department, with regard to which his conviction was that it was not only extremely extravagant, but was also far from being as capable as it ought to be, and had become a sort of wicked Old Man of the Sea, sitting upon the neck of every succeeding First Lord of the Admiralty. The Admiralty was going to buy up the freehold of all the coastguard stations, a most proper thing, and the proposal for electrifying the dockyards was most admirable. But this buying up of the coastguard stations meant making the Works Department permanent. In this total of £31,000,000 the Works Department figured for nearly £1,500,000 for superintending and miscellaneous charges. The Government were spending these vast sums without even an adequate estimate or defence of any one of them. He was tired of this, and if he stood alone he would make his protest against this monstrous expenditure and against the monstrous job involved in the purchase of the land at Rosyth.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid there were two points in the discussion which seemed to strike everyone. In the schedule to this Bill they were not told anything beyond the fact that this was the first instalment, and that the Government did not know what was to be the scale or even the scheme of the works at Rosyth. They were told that an expert was going down to
  348
  Rosyth to report upon all the requirements of the station from the works point of view. He wished to put this question very plainly to the Civil Lord: Did His Majesty's Government contend that an expenditure of £8,000,000 at Rosyth would be sufficient? If not, what was the sum total of the money they intended expending there. They were asked to give their sanction in this measure to a grant of £200,000 to start an operation the finality of which was not defined, and the extent of which the Government were not able to tell. He never heard of such a transaction in an Assembly supposed to be composed of business men. There was one item in the transaction which they did know of, and in regard to it he desired to assert his complete accord with the observations of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The sum of £200,000 had been asked for and voted for the naval base at Rosyth, and in regard to that sum one item was definite, and he had made some calculations with regard to it. He understood it to be actually the case that the Government had concluded a transaction of purchase in regard to land at the Rosyth base. They did not yet know what was to be put on the land, and they did not know what was to be the extent of the works to be erected there. They had yet to receive a report as to how extensive or how limited was the transaction, but the Government had completely made up their minds that they must buy the land, and before the House of Commons knew anything about it they had concluded this transaction. Perhaps the House of Commons would take from him a calculation based upon the statement of the Civil Lord. Here was a pretty little example in land purchase. There were 1,464 acres of land. The rental of that land was £1,620, and the purchase price was £122,500. He would bring this sum down to acres. A total of £1,620 of rental for 1,464 acres was land at the value of 22s. 2d. per acre of rental. So that this Scotch landlord had succeeded in obtaining from His Majesty's Government for land at 22s. 2d. per acre a purchase price of £84 per acre. They had recently been discussing what was the ordinary method of valuing land in Ireland, and he would give the House

  349
  the result of a comparison he had made. These Scotch landlords, whoever they might be, had obtained a purchase price of 75½ years of the rental of the land. But that was not the whole story. He understood that the mining rights were still reserved to the landlords, and the statement of the Civil Lord with regard to those rights, was that he hoped there would not be much to pay for them in the future, that they were to be subject to valuation, and that possibly a Supplementary Estimate in regard to thorn would have to be brought before the House of Commons.
  This £200,000 was a most curious item, because what expenditure it was going to lead to the Government did not know, but calculated on its own merits two-thirds of that sum was consumed in a purchase transaction, which he would only say was of a startling and incomprehensible character. In regard to the position of the Admiralty in this matter, it could not be pleaded that they had their hands tied in the negotiations. Under the Naval Works Act of 1895 power was granted, not only for the works in that year, but also power of compulsory purchase for all future works undertaken under the ægis of the Admiralty, upon the same principle as that which applied in the Military Works Act, and the Lands Clauses Act. Upon looking into the statutes he found that under Section 20 of the Military Lands Act there was a provision by which Parliament compelled arbitration in all such cases. He wished to ask the Government why arbitration was not resorted to in this case? Was there any reason why the Admiralty should abnegate all its rights granted recently by Art of Parliament, and should have made a transation of this kind behind the back of Parliament, without Parliament having an opportunity of either sanctioning or condemning the scheme? If His Majesty's Government did not desire to use compulsory power, and preferred to make a private bargain, how did the element of consistency stand? There was a precedent to hand in the proceedings of the House of Commons this session in regard to the Irish Land Bill. There was a case in which some of them were in favour of compulsory powers, but His Majesty's Government preferred private negotia-
  350
  tions with a bonus. There was a minimum and maximum price fixed of twenty-eight years purchase, and, with the bonus, thirty-two years. In those circumstances, would any hon. Member in the House explain to him why in Ireland a transaction of that kind should be concluded with a possible maximum of twenty-eight years, and a bonus of four years, while the same Government in the same session concluded privately a transaction for the acquisition of a plot of land in Scotland at seventy-five-and a-half years purchase. He should wait anxiously to hear the defence of that transaction, and he thought Parliament was now beginning to be interested in it. He desired to call the attention to this fact of those hon. Members who were inclined to jib at the Irish transaction.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,:) It is not sold there yet.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid they knew perfectly well that the Solicitor-General might have hopes in his mind with regard to that measure, to which up to this date he had only given his minimum support, but it would not do for him to try by an interjection of that kind to divert the mind of the House of Commons from a transaction under which it was plain that a Scotch landlord had obtained more than twice what was to be paid to the landlord interest in Ireland. This transaction was apparently completed. He hoped it was not, and he trusted that the exposure in this House would strengthen the hands of the Government and stiffen their backs before they finally ratified any such transaction. With regard to the site he entirely appreciated the situation in which His Majesty's Government found themselves as to its advantages. He understood perfectly the advantages to be gained from the easy access to matériel and the supply of labour; but he would like to know whether any provision was made for the workmen who would be employed and their families. An opportunity now occurred to the Government to prevent once for all the creation of a slum town at Rosyth. Had the Government made any prudent arrangement for the acquisition of the site which would be occupied by the town to be created? He contended that the Government ought to

  351
  make such arrangements that the town to be built up, should be built under enlightened conditions. Had the Government made arrangements for bringing in a water supply fit for an additional town of 20,000 or 30,000 inhabitants? If not, far from jibbing at the expense, he would willingly see another 1,000 acres added to the 1,464 in order that the Government could protect itself by seeing that the people in that part of Scotland should live under enlightened modern conditions with lung space sufficient for the community, recreation, ample water supply, and all the modern appliances of health and comfort. Unless that were done they would regret in Scotland the day they started this scheme. It would be bad for the Government to say that they took this land for their own purposes; that they would bring the labour to the spot and let the people look after themselves. That meant that the adjacent towns would have dumped down upon them a population living at a considerable distance from the scene of their labours. Then there would be an extreme demand for land in the immediate vicinity of the naval base and there would grow up exactly that condition of affairs which in England and Scotland disgraced borough life.
  *MR. PLUMMERsaid that from the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down the disadvantages of the site at Rosyth seemed to be so great that he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision to establish a naval base in Scotland and consider the advisability of establishing one on the north-east coast of England. He would only detain the House for a few moments while he referred to the naval base at Rosyth. He did not wish to question the establishment of this base because last week it was received with practical unanimity, and by none more so than by hon. Members representing Scotch constituencies. The great feature of this debate was the wonderful change which had apparently come over the opinions of Scotch Members in regard to this particular subject. The hon. Member for King's Lynn opposed this scheme as he opposed almost every scheme of His Majesty's Government. He would leave the hon. Member to the tender mercies of another critic of the Government whom they
  352
  were always glad to hear—he referred to the hon. Member for Gateshead, who had blessed this scheme, lock, stock, and barrel, although no doubt he had made a mental reservation that there should not be employed in connection with the scheme and its construction any water-tube boilers. His object in rising was to ask the Admiralty in the development of this new naval base not to lose sight of the great existing facilities both for construction and repair on the north-east coast at the present time. To take the Tyne alone there was a great arsenal at Elswick, within easy reach of the Forth, and on the same river there was the shipbuilding yard at Jarrow, where battleships of the largest size had been constructed. There were also engineering works of the greatest capacity, and dry docks capable of taking ships of the largest size. In the past the First Lord of the Admiralty had shown a due appreciation of these private dockyards. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had spoken about the Government dockyards in Portsmouth, and he rightly represented the views of his constituency, just as he was endeavouring to represent the interests of his district. The Admiralty seemed to have preserved a fair balance in the distribution of national work, and it was most essential that the work should be provided in something like a continuous manner, not by fits and starts in time of war but regularly in time of peace. The hon. Member quoted a passage from Cobden in support of this view, and said that although he did not ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to follow the extreme views of Cobden either in this or any other matter, he hoped that in considering the future development of this naval base due regard would be had to the extensive facilities on the north-east coast, and that nothing would be done at Rosyth in the way of creating establishments at great expenditure of capital which would injure those facilities which were within comparatively a stone's throw of Rosyth. It might be said that he was advocating the interests of one district, but they were all sent to that House charged with the responsibility of looking after the interests of their constituencies, and, provided they could do that without

  353
  neglecting the national interest, he believed they ought to do it. In this case he felt that he could conscientiously advocate the use of the great facilities on the Tyne and the north-east coast, feeling that by taking advantage of those facilities the Government would be pursuing a policy which would be in the interests of national economy.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite would remember that they had asked him more particularly as to whether this new harbour was to be a construction harbour. He did not think hon. Members could be charged with any desire to bring work to their own particular districts. He did not agree that that was not any part of their function in this House. In dealing with this subject, although a new port might be welcome in Scotland, it was a very secondary matter as compared with the question of the economical and proper spending of money. What they might fairly complain of was that they had not got the information they desired to have in regard to the plans for the new dockyard, which were left very much in the air, and were really invited to vote £200,000 in the form of preliminary expenses. He must not be taken as concurring in that policy. If this was a good project there seemed to be no reason why the successors of hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be bound by it. He did not see why the Government should have any fear in facing this policy and making it binding upon their successors if it was a good one. They were now asked to vote £200,000 for preliminary expenses, and they ought to have had much more definite information than they had yet received, as to the exact policy which was to be carried out. The reason why he ventured to put forward the argument for making this a construction harbour was that they would get cheaper construction there than they would by an extension of the dockyard at Chatham. It was a matter of little value whether the extra needs of the Fleet were mot at Chatham or at the new base on the Forth, but if they got a new base in the north of England they would have far greater economy of construction than in
  354
  the south. If in this way they set up a better standard of economical construction it would make itself felt in the Government dockyards. What they complained of was that there was still a lack of clearness in regard to the policy which had been declared to the House. As to the details of this Bill, there were one or two points which ought to have appeared in the annual Estimates. He agreed that the item for electric power might have come in the annual Votes and that would tend towards economy. He desired to protest against any scheme that involved extravagance, and he insisted upon the House retaining proper control over naval expenditure. The House did not retain that control under the Naval Works Act, nor had it any control over the policy of the Government in regard to that Act, for the Government had no clear policy to state to the House, and yet hon. Members were called upon to vote huge sums of money and to pay large sums for preliminary expenses for great works, without having any definite scheme laid before them.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the hon. Member for the Border Burghs referred to Rosyth and the arrangements for the purchase of the land there as something which had been done behind the back of Parliament. That was a ridiculous position to take up. In the first place such work could not be done in the House because the particular Minister concerned had to deal with it as administrative work, and he had to report what he had done to the House. The only point he agreed with was with regard to the regret expressed that a larger area of land had not been taken. The hon. Member opposite stated that he regretted that another 1,000 acres was not taken. He believed that if more land had been acquired by the Government it would have given the Admiralty greater control. He wished the House to remember, however, what would have happened if the question of purchasing this extra 1,000 acres had been discussed in the House. The result would have been that the owner of the land would have asked a very much higher price at the end of the debate than at the beginning of it. It was quite essential that these matters should

  355
  be done without first running to Parliament. Coming to the items on page 2 of the schedule of this Bill he noticed that under the heading "Enclosure and Defence of Harbours" they had expended a sum of about £3,500,000. That was the total amount of the money spent upon ports in the possession of this country abroad. If they took the total estimated cost and made up the aggregate, they would find it came to £7,500,000, and out of all those places Gibraltar was the only single possession abroad that was going in any way to share in the cost. He noticed that Gibraltar was going to pay an annuity of £14,000 per annum for fifty-seven years from the opening of the Mole. In regard to Malta the sum of £1,250,000 was to be spent there, although the revenue of Malta was five times less than Gibraltar. He did not think his hon. friend had made these matters quite clear. With regard to the Colombo dock, they were asked to spend a sum of £159,000, and nothing was contributed to that expenditure by the colony. He thought all these matters should be set out in the statement. He wished to know if this was a contribution to a colonial dock. At Simon's Bay they were proposing to spend £2,500,000, toward which no contribution or assistance was given by the Cape.
  In these matters the hon. Member for King's Lynn was a sort of Nelson who had always a blind eye for what he did not want to see. Two main considerations had to be taken into account. First there was the geographical situation of the sources of power of hostile nations; and next the probable direction of the lines of supplying and maintaining our base. With regard to the line of supply
  356
  we had to look across the Atlantic to Canada as the nearest possible source of supply, and unquestionably the line of supply to Rosyth and going round the North of Scotland, was a safer line than going through the Channel and the German Ocean. These considerations more than justified the Admiralty in the selection of that particular situation. With regard to the item in the schedule for Dover he reminded the House that he objected to the works there at the time they were proposed. He was, he thought, the only man of his Party who voted against the proposal, and as years had gone on the more he had been convinced that it was not a wise expenditure. The House of Commons took a different view and ratified the decision of the Admiralty, and the works having been proceeded with they had now to complete them. He was sure time would show that it was a great mistake, but so far as this Bill was concerned they were in duty bound to complete the works already sanctioned by the House. He thought the question of the price of land at Rosyth ought to be left to the Committee Stage, where it could be examined in all its details. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in a sneering way said that the next thing, the Admiralty might do would be to propose the establishment of a base in Australia. In view of the development of local sources of power by three great maritime nations in the Pacific, he did not look with complete reliance on our placing the whole of our resources in this hemisphere. That was a matter which lay in the future, but it would have to be considered before long. He thought this Naval Works Vote was reasonable, rational and sensible. He could see no new departure in this Bill with the sole exception of the base at Rosyth, and that

  357
  was amply justified. He was glad to observe from this Bill generally that the Admiralty were consistently carrying out a definite policy instead of wobbling about here and there, asking money one day, and in two or three years saying it was a mistake. He had great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. BLACKsaid he desired to associate himself with what the hon. and gallant Member had said with regard to the suitability of Rosyth for a naval base. The Admiralty had at last wakened up to the shifting of sea power on the part of foreign nations which had taken place within the last decade. There was a difference of opinion on the part of some hon. Members who had spoken to-day from what had been written on this subject by Captain Mahan. Captain Mahan began to write eight years ago, and during that period a great change had taken place with regard to the balance of sea power—a change which, he took it, would go on in the future as in the past. In the establishment of this naval base he appreciated very much what had been said by the Civil Lord on the subject of recruiting for the Navy. He hoped the establishment of the new base would revive throughout the whole seaboard of Scotland an interest in the Navy, and increase recruiting which, except in Edinburgh and Glasgow, had almost reached the vanishing point.
  He desired to call attention to a matter which had not yet been touched upon in regard to this naval base. On Tuesday last he inspected this base on the spot, under the guidance of one of the engineers already there. Perhaps hon. Members might not be aware of the exact situation
  358
  of this base. It was to the west of that great structure the Forth Bridge, and all vessels approaching this naval base would require to pass under that bridge. The bridge consisted of three cantilevers, vast in extent, but not very difficult to break down in certain conceivable events. The point he wished to-direct the attention of the Admiralty to was this, suppose in time of war the Forth Bridge got destroyed in any of its parts, was it quite certain that it would so fall so as not to form an obstruction of that base? He did not think that it would serve the purpose of the Admiralty to say that it was improbable it would so fall. In a matter so closely affecting the welfare of the country, as this might come to be if the bridge were broken down so as to form a barrier to access or egress, conditions might arise which might involve the ruin of the country. This was not a thing to take risks in, and although the chance was one in a thousand it was a chance which should be provided against. He had consulted an expert who said that while it was improbable that the bridge would so fall as to cause an obstruction it was not impossible. If one cantilever was destroyed or shot away, one end might fall so as to form a block in the channel. One might theorise as long as one pleased on the subject, but no amount of theory would serve. A cantilever might fall in such a way as to cause an obstruction for a few hours, and these might be fatal hours. He hoped the Admiralty would have due regard to this aspect of the matter. It was true that the position was fortified, but in modern warfare it was not only the approach of a hostile fleet they had to guard against. They had now become familiar with the submarine boat. Therefore the Admiralty should be in a position to say that under

  359
  no circumstances was it possible that the base could become blocked at a time when it was required. There were two remedies. A canal might be constructed between the Forth and the Clyde, or a second entrance might be made to the base through Inverkeithing Bay by cutting through a neck of land about a third of a mile wide and forty feet above medium sea level, situated to the east side of the Forth Bridge.
  With regard to the price paid for the land, he claimed to have some knowledge of land values in the district, and he declared without reserve that a very adequate price would have been twenty-eight years purchase of the net rental, or £42,000. Yet the Admiralty were actually paying nearly three times that amount. This was a matter on which the House should demand some explanation.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he would deal only with the principal points which had been raised, because he could reply more adequately to many of the questions in Committee. The main point was the price which had been paid for the site at Rosyth. He was amazed that hon. Gentlemen from Scotland, who thoroughly deserved the reputation of business men and had some experience of these matters, should have used the expression "a monstrous job." That was an expression which they heard more frequently in debates on questions affecting the sister country.
  MR. DILLON: We have nothing but jobs there.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that giving eighty years pur-
  360
  chase for this land to a friend and supporter of the Government is a job.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that bore out his view that these statements made without foundation were lightly made, and perhaps they might fall lightly. They were more often heard in Irish debates than in debates affecting Scotland, where men looked upon business matters from a serious point of view. [An HON. MEMBER: Why do you not treat Ireland seriously?] Would Ireland like to be treated seriously? The gravamen of this charge was that an area of land of which the rental was about £1,600 a year had been acquired at a price which represented eighty years' purchase on that rental. That was the sole ground on which the Admiralty had been attacked. A further suggestion had been made by several hon. Members that the Admiralty would have done better had they proceeded to put into force the powers of the Military Lands Act which were embodied in a former Naval Works Bill. As to the first point, hon. Members were aware that in the purchase of land there were many values to be considered besides the actual rental. A private company, which he assumed was a business company, had recently paid £9,000 for an area of land on which the rental was £10 a year.
  MR. BLACK: Where?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of London. The land of Rosyth was in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh.
  MR BLACK: How far?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid ten or twelve miles. The hon. Member had himself said that towns and villages were springing up in every direction in this district. The Admiralty obtained the services of two of the most experienced valuers who could be found in Scotland and sent them to Rosyth to make a valuation of the land on behalf of the Admiralty. The owner of the land had a valuation made on his own behalf, but with that the Admiralty had nothing to do. He would give the figures to the House with perfect frankness. The figures which these experienced valuers arrived at were £91,000 for one portion of the land and £22,000 for the other portion. That was about £7,000 less than the price which had been paid. The Admiralty were strongly advised that if they put into force the powers of the Military Lands Act, attendant expenses and the extra price which would probably be obtained would be largely in excess of the difference of £6,000 or £7,000 between the valuation and the offer of the owner. They were strongly advised by business men to close with the offer and to give the price which had been stated to the House. It had been stated again and again that this land might and should have been bought at twenty-eight years purchase. He did not profess to be familiar with the procedure in Scotland; but he was credibly informed, and he thought hon. Members would not deny it, that when land was taken compulsorily in Scotland, under any terms whatever, by a Government Department or by other parties, the price invariably obtained for it by arbitration was thirty years purchase plus 50 per cent. for compulsion. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh,"
  362
  and "No."] Well, that was so in many instances. Only the other day some land not far from this was taken by a corporation, he believed for gasworks, and no less than £1,100 per acre was paid for it.
  MR. BLACK: That is very much nearer Edinburgh. Besides that was considered a monstrous job.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid, although it was much nearer Edinburgh, £1,100 an acre was given for it, whereas only £80 an acre was paid for the land which the Admiralty had acquired. Of course the Admiralty had approached this matter from a business point of view. There was another element, and a not inconsiderable element in the purchase of this land. Lord Linlithgow was not willing to sell. His attitude was that if the land was necessary for naval purposes he would not refuse to sell it. He was unwilling to sell for the reason that thin land was purchased in the 17th century and since then had belonged to his family. Moreover, it was exactly opposite his own house. The feuing value of the land in this district was considerable. Evidence was produced—[dissent expressed on Opposition benches]—he was stating facts, and he would not stand at that table and state as facts what he did not know to be facts—satisfactory evidence was produced to the Admiralty, that £15 an acre had been offered, and was being offered, for feuing land in this district. Lord Linlithgow's special reason why he did not wish to part with this land was that it was exactly opposite his windows.
  MR. BLACK: How far?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid there were two miles of water between the house and the land at high water, but there was a foreshore of half a mile, and if any large works were erected on the foreshore they would be in front of the windows of the house at a distance of a mile and a half. That was a point which was treated as amenity by the valuers. By taking away all Lord Linlithgow's Fifeshire property, not only would his Lordship not obtain the benefits of any unearned increment, but the amenity of Hopetoun House would be reduced to a considerable extent. Great stress had been laid on the extreme adaptability of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired; and he thought that, when all these points were taken into consideration, the House would see that the Admiralty, as a matter of policy, and also as a matter of business, had taken the only course which they could have done—viz., to have the land valued and acquired on the best terms they could. He wished they could have acquired it cheaper, but he believed they had made as fair a bargain as one could expect under the circumstances. It had simply been a business transaction. No doubt the present owner would be considerably benefited, but he doubted whether, had the land belonged to any hon. Member opposite, the Admiralty could have got it any cheaper. The land had not been given to them, and if anyone wanted land he had to pay for it. He was of opinion that if the price of the land and the whole circumstances were compared with the general circumstances attending the purchase of land for public purposes, they had not made a bad bargain.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the hon. Gentleman was aware that the price paid by the War Office for Salisbury Plain nowhere exceeded thirty-five years purchase.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that that was purely agricultural land, and was quite a different case from Rosyth, which had very considerable elements of value for feuing purposes in addition. The main point on which he relied was this. Mr. Binnie, of Glasgow, a valuer of the greatest experience, acted on behalf of the Admiralty, and his valuation was within a few thousands of the sum they had to pay. He would also like to point out that their position with regard to enforcing the Military Lands Acts was not a very strong one. These powers were conferred for the purpose of acquiring land for the use of either service for direct military purposes. Several hon. Members had most strongly insisted on the desirability of using a very large portion of this land, not for a direct military or naval purpose, but for the purpose of housing the workmen, and of providing a garden city. It was entirely a new precedent to take land in order to let it out for building workmen's houses with gardens attached; and it was certainly a doubtful point whether land could have been forcibly taken under the Military Lands Acts for these purposes. The hon. Member opposite, and others, had very properly stated the great disadvantage which existed at Devonport, Portsmouth and Chatham, from the congested slum areas in close proximity to the dockyards, and that was one of the facts in the mind of the Board of Admiralty when they acquired this area of land at Rosyth. Two points had to

  365
  be considered in this matter; one the point of view of the taxpayer, and the other the point of view of the dockyard personnel. He trusted the House would never attempt to force on the Board of Admiralty any such policy as he thought was suggested in some of the speeches which had been delivered—the policy of the Admiralty themselves undertaking to build and to supply cottages for the whole of the personnel of the dockyard. That policy would be most wasteful and extravagant, and it was not a policy the Admiralty intended to follow. What the Admiralty did wish to do, and what they had had in their mind throughout, was, that when a sufficient area of land had been allotted for naval purposes, immediate and anticipated—for a naval base, for a naval dockyard, and for naval construction—the remainder of the area, which would be considerable, would be available for the housing of the personnel of the yard. What the Admiralty proposed to do was to feu or let land on reasonable conditions to private individuals, under such restrictions as seemed necessary to provide sufficient accommodation and air space for the personnel. That, he ventured to put to the House was, it an entirely new policy, also a business-like policy.
  MR. PIRIE: What about the mineral rights?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that a part of the land was purchased with complete mineral rights, but Lord Hopetoun's property was purchased subject to the addition of a valuation for minerals, if they should be found there. Stone was; included in the price, but the mineral question resolved itself into a question
  366
  of shale. Shale beds existed on the south side of the Forth, but experts were of opinion that these beds did not extend to the north side of the Forth. The minerals, if they existed, could not be worked by the owner without destroying the amenities of his property, and it had been arranged that any valuation for the minerals should be subject to a deduction on this account. The Admiralty had been obliged to do the best they could in the matter. He had been asked as to the scope of the new establishment. This was probably the first time that any proposal of this character had ever been made to the House. Some hon. Members thought it right that the Admiralty should be pressed to say exactly what they were going to do. He most entirely demurred to that. In a great project of this kind, no wise man would commit himself to details until he had carried out a most careful examination of the site, not only of what was above, but of what was below ground; and bad it surveyed and planned by competent engineers. On the question of policy he could only say that the Admiralty bad acquired the land, that they had a comprehensive plan for naval purposes, that they were going to proceed immediately to erect buildings necessary for a naval base—barracks, training schools, and a hospital—and when another Naval Works Bill was introduced the Admiralty would probably be able to make a definite proposal in regard to docks and basins, and construction, if there were any constructional proposal. It must be remembered, however, that it was perfectly possible to construct ships in private yards, but that to keep them there was a different matter altogether. It was

  367
  absolutely necessary that the ships in reserve which might have to be mobilised in case of war within forty-eight hours, should be at the naval bases where were the men, stores, ammunition, and the whole equipment. The question of berthing was one which concerned dockyards and naval bases, but could not concern private yards; while the question of construction was on another footing altogether. It had always been the policy of the Admiralty as far as possible to balance the expenditure in construction between the naval dockyards and the private yards. It was true that this naval base was eminently suited for construction; but it would be really premature at this stage to state that the Admiralty were committed to a policy of construction, although he thought it most likely that when another Naval Works Bill was introduced the House would be asked to sanction a scheme which would cover the construction of ships in these yards.
  As to the water supply, that question had been very carefully considered; and they had been met in the most friendly spirit by the local authorities of the county who supplied the district with water. The Director of Works of the Admiralty had met Lord Elgin, the Chairman of the County Council, on the spot, and a scheme was now under consideration for a supply which would meet all possible needs. He thought his hon. friend opposite need not be anxious in regard to the Forth Bridge. There were no less than 200 feet of water beneath one span of the bridge, and 180 feet beneath another, so that it was impossible that the whole area should be blocked to a battleship by the falling of the bridge.
  368
  There could be no doubt that the existence of a canal would be of advantage to any fleet at St. Margaret's Hope; but whether that should be constructed, or even assisted, out of the Naval Funds was quite another matter, which the Admiralty at present were not prepared to discuss. He thought some hon. Members who had spoken might endeavour to persuade their constituents to construct such a canal which the Admiralty would be very happy to use. The question of finance had been already amply dealt with. The general policy of providing money for great works by loan had been discussed over and over again, and approved again and again, very often without a division. Of course, there would be always differences of opinion as to the exact line which might be drawn between loan and Vote, and the exact allocation of items. He could only say that the Admiralty had considered each case on its merits, and had held that unless works were of a permanent character that would to some extent benefit future generations, they were not proper subjects for a loan. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had that day, as on former occasions, used very strong expressions about the Works Department of the Admiralty. But any charges that were made should, he thought, be specific and in regard to specific actions; to make charges of incapacity generally, and without specific proof, against public servants of the Crown who occupied a delicate and difficult position was not in accordance with the spirit of debate in this House. The officers of the Works Department, so far from being incapable in their work, had produced most excellent work, which would compare favourably with that of the most eminent

  369
  civil engineers in the country. He knew that the work done by the Admiralty in all corners of the globe had been most excellent. He hoped that the House would now be good enough to give a Second Reading to the Bill. Any further details could be discussed in Committee.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that after the attack which had been made upon what was called the sister Isle he must make a few observations. In the first place no Irish Member had spoken in the debate; and in the second place the observation made in regard to judicial purchase in Ireland came from a Scotch Member.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that he had no intention whatever to throw any reflection on the Irish Members.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would go no further on that point. The hon. Gentleman stated that in starting this undertaking some provision had to be made for the proper housing
  of a large number of workmen to be employed there, but that for the Admiralty to do so would be extravagant and unjustifiable. He thought that that was inconsistent, when they remembered that the Admiralty had paid £80 an acre for land which was worth not much more than £1 an acre. Never let it be said hereafter that Irish Members were indifferent to the public interests. They heard a good deal of talk about patriotism. Where did the patriotism come in when this nobleman would not give the land necessary for a great national purpose unless he received £80 an acre for it? Sometimes they heard things said in this country about what went on in America, and it was stated that this country was completely free from the financial transactions rampant in America. He maintained that nothing had taken place in America that could possibly surpass, or even equal, in any way, this transaction. It was very easy to be patriotic when one got £80 an acre for land which was let at £1 a year.
  Question put.
  House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 73. (Division List, No. 141.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Faber, George Danison (York)

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

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

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Coddington, Sir William

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bond, Edward

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Flower, Ernest

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cranborne, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Butcher, John George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasg.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & N'rn

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Royds, Clement, Molyneux

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Spear, John Ward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Melville, Boresford Valentine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Stroyan, John

  Hermon Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

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

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Penn, John

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Percy, Earl

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Kerr, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell- (Birm

  Knowles, Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N R.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robinson, Brooke

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abrahan, William (Rhondda)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Burran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burt, Thomas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Caldwell, James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Joyce, Michael

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tomkinson, James

  Dillon, John

  Lesssng, Sir John

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Wallace, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Young, Samuel

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Murphy, John

  Mr. Buchanan and Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Eugene Wason.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  Adjourned at eighteen minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th day of July, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz.:—Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Fife Electric Power Bill [Lords].
  1130
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [Lords] (King's consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Sutton Coldfield Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Bangor Corporation Bill [Lords]; Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords]; Pentillie Estate Bill [Lords]; South. Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time to morrow.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time and committed.
  Scottish Episcopal Clergy Widows' and Orphans' Fund Confirmation Order. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Scottish Episcopal Clergy Widows' and Orphans' Fund, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Scottish Episcopal Clergy Widows' and Orphans' Fund Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Scottish Episcopal Clergy Widows' and Orphans' Fund," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Friday.

  MESSAGE EROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, with an Amendment.
  Amendments to—London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords];

  1131
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Lanarkshire Tramways." [Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill (Lords;]
  Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 28th July, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Winchburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEFENCE SCHEME.
  Petition from Baildon, for adoption; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE (COLONIES AND UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th July—Mr. Fuller]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 262.]
  SOMALILAND (DESPATCHES).
  Copy presented, of Despatches relative to the Operations of the Somaliland Field Force [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented, of Further Regulations relating to the Militia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Further Regulations relating to the Army Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Syllabuses and Lists of Apparatus applicable to Schools and Classes other than Elementary (from 1st
  1132
  August, 1903, to 31st July, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1903, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended the 31st March, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 263.]

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3034 and 3035 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  SUPREME COURT (RULES).
  Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 14th July, 1903 [by Act].
  PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "of the number of parishes in the counties of Orkney, Shetland, Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and Argyll, in which the office of resident Parochial Medical Officer has been vacant within the last seven years, stating (a) name of parish; (b) number of times a vacancy has occurred; (c) length of time the office has been vacant in each case."—(Mr. Cathcart Wason.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Value of Imports into British Colonies and Possessions from Foreign Countries.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Return [C. 1638], stating the value of the trade of the various British colonies and possessions with the United Kingdom, other British possessions, and foreign countries during the year 1901,

  1133
  can he state the value of manufactured goods, raw material, and food stuffs respectively, imported into each colony and possession from foreign countries during that year.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am prepared to grant a Return of the imports from foreign countries into the self-governing colonies for 1901, but even this will take some time.

  Average Prices of Iron, Steel etc., and Cotton and Woollen Goods in 1872 and 1902.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the average prices of Middlesbrough No. 3 pig iron, of steel rails, and of ship plates; also of cotton cloth nine pound and eight and a-quarter pound shirtings; and also of the standard woollen goods supplied by contract to the War Office and Admiralty in the years 1872 and 1902 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The average selling prices of Middlesbrough No. 3 pig iron at the works in 1872 and 1902 were 65s, 4d. per ton and 46s. 10·21 d. per ton respectively. The average selling prices of heavy steel rails and ship plates in the North of England and Cleveland in 1902 were £5 8s. 10d. and £5 14s. respectively. The information as to these prices in the possession of the Board of Trade only goes back to 1887. The Board of Trade have no official information as to the course of prices of cotton goods of the particular descriptions named. The average price of plain cotton piece goods exported in 1872 was 3·51d. per yard, and in 1902 2·01d. (unbleached), and 2·46d. (bleached). The last part of the Question should be addressed to the War Office and Admiralty.

  Scotch Fishing Boats—Crew Space—Deductions for Sanitary Accommodation.
  MR. BLACK: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in cases where Scotch fishermen supply sanitary accommodation in their boats, deductions from the test rule measurement will be allowed in respect of crew space.
  1134
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) If the registered tonnage of a vessel is arrived at under the tonnage regulations of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and the sanitary accommodation is in accordance with the Sixth Schedule to that Act, the usual deduction from crew space will be allowed, but not if the tonnage of the vessel is arrived at by what is known as the test rule.

  Transference of Old Ships from British Ownership to Foreign Flags.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many old sailing ships and old steamships were sold from British ownership under the British flag to foreign ownership under foreign flags in each year from 1875 to 1902; and what was the tonnage thus transferred in each year respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) If the hon. Member will move for a Return of the information asked for in this Question I shall be happy to supply it.

  German and British Trade Statistics—Explanation of Differences.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain the difference in the methods adopted by ourselves and Germany of arriving at the value of the trade between the two countries, whereby the statistics given in the Annual Statement show the yearly exports from the United Kingdom to Germany to generally exceed the imports therefrom, whereas the figures in the Foreign Statistical Abstract, derived from German sources, show the exports from that country to us as largely exceeding the imports from us; and can he say whether the principal foreign countries adopt out system of valuing imports c.i.f. or inclusive of freigh and insurance, or the American system of valuing them at the place of shipment abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The values of imports and exports in the United Kingdom Trade Accounts are based on declarations of importers and exporters as to the value at the port of arrival or departure, respectively.

  1135
  The values in the German Accounts are based on official valuations revised annually by a Commission. In both cases sea freight is included in the value of imports, but not in that of exports, and this is also true of the principal foreign countries, except the United States. The differences between the value of trade between the United Kingdom and Germany, as shown in the United Kingdom and German Trade Accounts respectively, are due to several causes, among which are the magnitude of the transit trade through Belgium and Holland, which causes part of Anglo - German trade to be recorded as carried on with those countries, and the omission of the free port of Hamburg from the Imperial German Accounts.

  Trade to East African Protectorate—Subsidies to British Steamships.
  MR. ORR-EWING: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to that part of the Report by His Majesty's Commissioner on the East African Protectorate (Africa, No. 6, 1903), in which it is pointed out that out of a gross tonnage of steamers which entered the ports of Mombasa and Kilindini of 421,212 tons during 1902, German shipping amounted to 170,188 tons, and to the remark that, as the French and; German lines which frequent this port are both subsidised, it is greatly to be hoped that a similar privilege, as recommended by the Parliamentary Committee which considered the subject, may be extended to British lines in order that British trade may not be at a disadvantage; and, if so, whether he will state if he contemplates taking any action in the matter, or if he will see that it receives attention during the fiscal Inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) My attention has been called to the Report in question, from which I observe that Sir C. Eliot, while pointing out that German tonnage was 170,188, states that 224,604 tons (or over half the total) were British. No French shipping appears, according to the Report, to have entered the ports of Mombasa and Kilindini in the year 1902–3. From the imports statements
  1136
  I observe that, in addition to practically the whole of the Government imports (£700,660), about 62 per cent. of the trade imports (£443,032 in all) came from the United Kingdom and India, as against 11·4 per cent from Germany. No action in the matter is at present contemplated; but I may add that there is reason to hope that a direct British service may not require recourse to subsidies.

  Marriage Allowance to Women Telephone Operators.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether women telephone operators upon the established staff of the Post Office are entitled to the compassionate allowance granted to other female employees of the Civil Service upon their resignation from the Service owing to marriage.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes. Sir.

  Resignations of Post Office Second Division Clerks.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of clerks of the second division employed by the Post Office who resigned their positions and left the Civil Service during the twelve months ending December, 1902; and whether the causes of the resignations can be stated generally.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The number was seven, but reasons were not given in all the cases.

  British Troops in South Africa Charge on Indian Revenues.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has given its consent to the proposal to charge the Indian Revenues with part of the cost of the maintenance of British troops in South Africa; and whether the correspondence that has passed on the subject will be laid upon the Table at an early date.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am in communication with the Government of India upon the proposal to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but no decision has as yet been arrived at. Until the correspondence is complete I can

  1137
  give no opinion as to whether or not it can be published.

  Gun Sights on the "Donegal."
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the gunnery trials of the "Donegal," near Plymouth Harbour, were postponed in consequence of the sights being incorrect; and, if so, who is responsible for the supply of the defective apparatus.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The gunnery trials of the "Donegal" were not postponed, but were carried out on the 1st July. Certain experimental fittings, designed to facilitate sighting, were to have been tried in this ship, but it was found that the fittings referred to could not be prepared by the date fixed for gun trials. The special series was therefore not tired in this ship, but will be carried out in another of the same class. I may add that the twin mountings carried on this ship and others of her class are of novel design, and the sighting arrangements are, therefore, to a large extent experimental, as they have to be adjusted to the peculiar form of turret and mounting.

  Additional Naval Attaché.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an additional Naval attaché has recently been appointed; and, if so, to what country he has been accredited, and what are the reasons for his appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) An additional Naval attaché has been appointed, and it will thus be possible to accredit separate attachés to Rome and St. Petersburgh respectively. The reason for the appointment is the additional amount of work thrown upon the existing attachés owing to the rapid and recent development of foreign Navies.

  Suggested Appointment to Congested Districts Beards of Chairman of Kerry County Council.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the representations of public bodies as to the appointment of some southern member on the Congested Districts Board, he will appoint to the next vacancy the Chairman of the Kerry County Council.
  1138
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I cannot make an announcement in respect to a future appointment until a vacancy occurs.

  Disturbance in Donegal Street, Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a procession on the 13th inst., while passing down Donegal Street, Belfast, was stoned, and that persons were injured; and if he can state why only two policemen were placed at this point to keep back the opposing mobs.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There were sixty-four police on duty in Donegal Street at the time of the occurrence. They did their utmost to keep the opposing mobs asunder, and several of them were struck with stones.

  Interference with Erection of an Arch at Belfast by a Sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Green-castle, Belfast, cut the roping of an arch and prohibited its erection; and, if so, will he say on whose authority this officer acted in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The erection of an Orange Arch on Sunday the 12th inst. was calculated, in the opinion of the local police authorities, to lead to a disturbance of the public peace and tranquillity. Roman Catholics would have had to pass under it in going to their place of worship. The erection of the arch on Sunday was, therefore, prevented, but it was put up on Monday, the date of the Orange demonstration.

  Average Cost of Infantry Soldier in England.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the average cost per year of an infantry soldier in England, including share of barrack accommodation and regimental officers, but not any Staff or departmental expenses, when he is serving with a battalion on lowest home establishment, when serving in an ordinary peace depôt,

  1139
  supposing him to serve a year in it, and when serving in one of the larger depôts of 600 or upwards which were started during the war.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As regards the trained infantry soldier at home my hon. and gallant friend will find figures comprising the personal charges of the individual soldier, including a rate per head for barrack accommodation, in my reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for East Bristol on 26th May last.† It would be very difficult to give figures in respect of the additional cost of regimental officers in a battalion and at a depôt, and they would be very misleading for purposes of comparison, as the functions of a battalion and depôt are dissimilar.

  Actual Strength and Authorised Establishment of Foot Guards.
  MR. KENNETH BALFOUR: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the actual strength of each regiment of Foot Guards at the present time, and what is the establishment authorised for the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The figures are as follows:—

  Estab.

  Strength.

  Grenadier Guards

  2,661

  2,433

  Coldstream Guards

  2,661

  2,252

  Scots Guards

  2,679

  2,094

  Irish Guards

  1,100

  1,145

  It will be observed that the deficiency is mainly in the Coldstream and Scots Guards, to each of which an additional battalion has been recently added.

  Trade between Great Britain and the Colonies.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is at liberty to state broadly the grounds upon which the representatives of the colonies, more particularly those of Canada, came to the resolution at the Conference last year that, in the present circumstances of the colonies, it is not practicable to adopt a general system of free trade as between the mother country and the British Dominions beyond the seas; and to what extent the resolution was
  † See (4) Debates, cxxii., 1796.
  1140
  due to the necessity of protecting colonial manufactures against those in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The hon. Gentleman asks me to give a broad indication of what was in the minds of the Colonial Premiers when they came to certain resolutions. I regret to say that, not being a thought I reader, I am unable to comply with his request.

  Canada and Great Britain—Imports of Iron and Steel.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that certain iron and steel manufactures are stated to be on the Canadian list of free imports only until such time as any of the said articles are manufactured in Canada, if he can say what length of notice is required to be given that goods hitherto imported from the mother country free will be charged a Customs duty on arrival in Canada; and whether the wire rods, upon the manufacture of which it is reported the Canadian Government propose to give a bounty of $6 per ton, or the structural ironwork and large steel plates, upon which it is proposed to give a bounty of $3, are at present being made in Canada.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have no information which will enable me to answer the hon. Member's Question. The law is silent on the point raised.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Somaliland Operations.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government have yet received full despatches from General Manning in reference to the recent operations in Somaliland; whether the Government have yet come to a decision as to the future policy to be pursued in Somaliland; when General Manning's despatches and the decision of the Government will be communicated to the House; and whether the Government are now in a position to give an

  1141
  estimate of the probable cost of the operations in Somaliland during the current financial year over the amount already provided by Parliament.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The despatches will be laid at once. As regards future operations we are now in communication with General Egerton, but it, would, of course, be impossible to publish the detailed action proposed. Further, it is not possible, at present, to calculate the possible expenditure, but there is no intention whatever of undertaking enterprises involving great expense.
  MR. DILLON: May I remind the noble Lord that the Secretary of State for War stated that as soon as the full despatches were received from General Manning the Government would resolve upon a policy and communicate it to the House. Can the noble Lord state on what date that will be done?
  *LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question The despatches will be laid at once. Communications are now passing between the right hon. Gentleman and General Egerton.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Is it not possible to tell the country what we are fighting about?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Army Pensions—Case of John Devine, late 2nd Dragoon Guards.
  SIR FREDERICK RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case of John Devine, late 2nd Dragoon Guards, invalided from Abbasieh, March, 1895, totally disabled from accident in the gymnasium, and who has applied for a life pension in consequence and been refused; and, if so, will he state what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  *LORD STANLEY: This man has been awarded a permanent pension from the 3rd ultimo—the date of his last appli-
  1142
  cation. From the last medical report on him it appears that his capacity for earning a livelihood is impaired to the extent of one-fourth only.

  Woolwich Arsenal Explosion.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any permanent provision will be made by the War Office authorities for the maintenance and education of the widows and children of the men who were killed in the recent accident at Woolwich.
  LORD STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Baronet to my reply to the Member for West Newington on the 22nd ultimo, to which I can add nothing.†

  The Australian Squadron—Colonial Contribution to Annual Expenditure.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated cost of the naval force, to consist of one first, two second, and four third class cruisers, proposed for the Australian squadron; and how far the £200,000 proposed to be contributed by Australia will meet the annual expenditure, taking into account the annual depreciation.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As several questions respecting the organisation and pay of the colonial naval forces are still under consideration, it is not possible as yet to give a complete estimate of the total cost. The proposed contribution of the Commonwealth of Australia is fixed, under Article VIII. of the draft agreement already laid before Parliament, at five-twelfths, and that of New Zealand at one-twelfth of the total annual cost, including a sum equal to 5 per cent. on the prime cost of the ships, but the total payments are not to exceed £200,000 and £40,000 respectively in any one year. It is estimated, therefore, that the Australian contribution will amount to between one-half and one-third of the total cost.

  Royal Naval Reserve.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if
  †See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 59.

  1143
  he will state whether the branch of the Royal Naval Reserve consisting of twenty-five officers and 700 men is to be paid out of the £200,000 contribution to be furnished by Australia; and also if the Australian rate of pay to be paid to 1,600 Australians is provided from the same source.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: These expenses will form part of the total cost of maintenance of the naval force on the Australian Station, and therefore will be defrayed from the colonial contributions to the extent mentioned in my previous reply.

  Cretan Consul-General.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a retired member of the diplomatic service is to be appointed Consul-General in Crete; and, if so, whether this course is in accordance with the promises and inducements held out to the British consular officials in the Levant on entering the service.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): It is the fact that a former member of the diplomatic service has been appointed Consul-General in Crete. I am not aware of any promises or inducements held out to the Levant service which interfere with the right of the Secretary of State to use his own discretion in filling up any particular post, having regard to the special circumstances of the case. The functions of the Consul-General in Crete are of a very special kind, and are, in fact, mainly of a diplomatic character.

  British Investments Abroad and Foreign Investments in Great Britain.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total amounts respectively of investments of British capital in America and France, and of French and American capital in Great Britain; if information thereon be non-existent, whether he will endeavour to procure the same; and whether the amount of British capital invested in America and France is now on the increase or decrease.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): As regards investments abroad, the only income which can be identified as coming from any particular country is the portion derived from foreign and colonial Government securities, as shown on page 183 of the last Report of the Inland Revenue. I know of no means of obtaining information as to the investment in Great Britain of French or American capital.

  Office of Woods and Forests—Sale to Lord Penrhyn.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, as representing the Office of Woods and Forests, if he can state what consideration the Crown received in respect of 6,129 acres of unenclosed land to Lord Penrhyn including sporting and other lights; if any other such dispositions are pending; and, if so, what inquiry will be held with reference to public rights before the same are completed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): The Crown received, in the year 1858, £1,739 for its right of soil in the area referred to and for the right of sporting over it, together with some chief rents amounting to £6 9s. 10d. per annum. The sale was made subject to such rights of common, of pasture, or turbary, and to such rights of way, as were legally exercisable over the land. All minerals, including slate and stone, were reserved to the Crown. No other similar dispositions are pending.

  Return—Condition of Trade and the People, 1801 to 1902.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, can he now say when the Return, Condition of Trade and the People, 1801 to 1902, will be ready.
  MR. ELLIOT: The Return will be ready, I hope, before the end of the session.

  "Passive Resistance" to the Education Rate.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the difficulty of securing the

  1145
  services of auctioneers to sell the goods and chattels belonging to persons refusing to pay the education rate for denominational schools, seized under distress warrants by the overseers; whether he is aware that in many cases goods have been seized of value far in excess of the balance of rate claimed, and are being held without sale by the overseers; and whether he will issue a circular of advice and instructions to the local authorities as to what course they ought to take in these circumstances.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend's replies to Questions on this subject on the 11th June † and 7th inst.‡ The matter is not one with respect to which he is empowered to intervene, and he does not propose to issue any circular of the kind suggested.

  Return of British Colonial Import Duties.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will grant the Return relating to British Colonies (Duties on Imports) standing on to-day's Notice Paper.
  The Return referred to is as follows:—
  British Colonics (Duties on Imports),—Return of the amounts received respectively by British colonies from Duties on Imports in the years 1882, 1892, and the last year published, and their population at those periods.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Thank you.

  Tariff War and the British Shipping Industry.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called, in view of a war of tariff's with foreign countries, to the possibility of the ex-
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 643.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 1527.
  1146
  clusion of British coasters and tramp vessels from the coasting trade of foreign countries; and whether he will cause full inquiries to be made of every shipbuilding firm in Great Britain as to the effect upon our shipbuilding industry of such exclusion, regard being had to the numbers of men employed, to the wages of shipyard and engine works men, and to the profits on the capital invested in the industry.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The interests of British shipping engaged in foreign coasting trade will not be lost sight of, but I do not think the inquiry suggested would throw much additional light on the subject.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Basis of Valuation.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that in the statistics prepared by the Board of Trade relating to the exports and imports of this country the values of the exports are taken f.o.b. while the values of the imports are taken c.i.f.; in the statistics now being prepared for the use of the Colonial Secretary, and which the Government have promised to lay before Parliament, he will call attention to this fact and state approximately in separate columns the amount which ought to be deducted from the apparent value of British imports in respect of the commission, freight, and insurance earned by British merchants, shipowners, and underwriters by whom these imports are brought into the country.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The basis on which imports and exports are valued will not be lost sight of in any statistics prepared by the Board of Trade. The mode of correction suggested in the last part of the Question does not appear either practicable or calculated to improve the statistics.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Could not something be done in the way of showing the amount of freight and insurance if not commission.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think it would be difficult.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESput another Question, of which Mr. GERALD BALFOUR asked for notice.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difference in values per ton of many British exports, such as coal, iron, steel, and machinery, in times of brisk trade as compared with times of slack trade, and to the fact that an apparent decrease in value in such exports is frequently accompanied by an actual increase in the tonnage manufactured in Britain and exported; and whether, in the statistics of the exports and imports which the Government have promised to lay before Parliament, he will base the relation between exports and imports upon the tonnage and not upon the fluctuating market values of each year or period of years.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The point has frequently been called attention to in publications of the Board of Trade. It is always desirable, so far as practicable, to state the course of trade in particular articles in terms of quantity as well as of value, but a comparison of total trade from year to year based on tonnage, would not, I fear, be of much utility, even if practicable, as the whole of our export trade would be dominated by the weight of coal, and of our import trade by a few heavy articles such as grain and timber.

  Overhead Electric Wires.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the Governments of America, France Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and other countries have, during the last ten years, passed laws regulating the methods of distributing high-tension current by overhead wires, which has resulted in a widely employed vise of electricity for industrial purposes, he will say whether there is a single case in Great Britain or Ireland where high-tension current overhead wires have been installed.
  The HON. MEMRER also had the following Questions on the Paper:—
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the continued refusals of the Board of Trade to grant facilities to manufacturers in this country to use high-tension wires, for the alleged reason that these wires might be dangerous to the public, he has taken any steps to ask the Foreign Office to obtain Reports from His Majesty's Consuls abroad as to whether any accidents have been caused by this system of power transmission; and if he has not done so will he communicate with the Foreign Office on the subject with a view of obtaining these Reports.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, on 19th June, 1901, the chief electrical adviser of his Department received from the secretary of the London Chamber of Commerce a memorandum drawn up by a committee of electrical experts in this country stating that the Board of Trade regulations had hitherto practically entirely prohibited overhead wires in the United Kingdom except under such conditions as to make it impracticable; and will he say if this memorandum was brought to his notice, and, if so, when; whether new regulations have been issued in substitution of the old regulations; and whether Regulation No. 33, relating to aerial conductors, has been cancelled.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will reply to the hon. Member's three Questions together. There is no case in Great Britain or Ireland where bare overhead wires have been installed for the transmission of electricity at high voltage for industrial purposes. The Department has not been asked to sanction this method of supply until quite recently, and, as I have already intimated, is ready to give favourable consideration to each application. I have no objection to asking the Foreign Office for copies of the laws of the countries named in the hon. Member's first Question, and for some Reports as suggested in the second Question. In regard to the last Question, the memorandum referred to by the hon. Member was sent in a covering

  1149
  letter addressed to the electrical adviser to the Board of Trade with a request that that officer would receive a deputation. The electrical adviser answered the memorandum himself, and the matter was properly within his cognisance. I have given my personal attention to this question of distributing high-tension current by overhead wires. As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Board of Trade have been, and still are, prepared to consider each case on its merits without reference to any model regulations. In the cases now under consideration, the electrical adviser will prepare special regulations applicable to the circumstances of each case. Model Regulation 33 does not appear to relate to aerial conductors. If the hon. Member refers to Regulation 23, that is not a model regulation which would now be insisted upon in dealing with a high-tension system.
  MR. MARKHAMwas understood to ask if sanction had not been given in one case on the understanding that if the district affected became an urban district the wire must be taken down.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I intimated the question would be reconsidered in five years.

  Vacant Prison Commissionership.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to fill up the vacant Prison Commissionership; and whether he will take steps shortly to appoint a civil servant whose knowledge of prison work is based upon practical experience.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,): My right hon. friend has nothing to add to the printed answer which he gave last Thursday† to an almost identical Question placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Berwickshire.

  Scottish Local Government Officials—Participation in Political Contests.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if, in view of the
  † See Page 851.
  1150
  fact of the sums distributed by the Congested Districts Board, the attention of County Councils will be directed to the inexpediency of allowing their paid servants to act as political agents, returning officers, or taking an active part against any candidates.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The reference by the hon. Member to the Congested Districts Board does not seem to have any bearing on the point referred to, and I have nothing to add to the answer given on the 9th instant to the hon. Member for Aberdeen.†

  Church of Scotland and the Confession of Faith.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh on the 27th of May last, on the motion of the Rev. Dr. Scott; and, if so, whether, having regard to the contract between the Crown and the Established Church of Scotland relative to the doctrines approved by repeated Acts of Parliament and made obligatory on this Church in the formulary known as the Confession of Faith, he will state whether he proposes to take any, and if so what, steps in this matter.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The matter referred to by the hon. Member does not come within the sphere of my official duty.

  Land Loans in Ireland—The Acres, Dromahair.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Stewart Gillmour, of Dromahair, County Leitrim, on the 24th July, 1902, swore an affidavit, before the local commissioner for taking oaths, to the effect that he was tenant of lands in Dromahair, known as The Acres, since 1880, although the records show that he only paid 11½d. in rates for land in Dromahair during the previous year, 1901–2; and seeing that, on the strength of that affidavit, Mr. Gillmour has obtained an advance of £480 from the
  † See Page 156.

  1151
  Land Commission for the purchase of this land, whether he will arrange for a sworn inquiry to be held, at which the Land Commission inspector who inspected these lands will be required to give evidence, with the object of having this matter cleared up.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have no power to direct the inquiry suggested, nor, so far as I have been able to ascertain, has there been anything whatever criminal in Mr. Gillmour's conduct. I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous Question of the 29th June on the same subject.†

  Sneem Courthouse.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state on what grounds permission to inspect the Courthouse at Sneem was refused by the petty sessions clerk to the hon. Member for South Kerry and Mr. John Sheehan, a local justice, twelve months ago, when it was stated that the courthouse was in a bad state of repair.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The petty sessions clerk withheld permission on that occasion because he had not the authority of the justices in petty sessions.
  MR. FLAVIN: Then do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to lay it down that a magistrate has no right to enter into the Courthouse in which he adjudicates?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will read my Answer he will see I laid down nothing of the kind.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the magistrates sitting at Sneem petty sessions, county Kerry, unanimously adjourned the Court in June and July owing to the Courthouse being in an in sanitary condition and in such a bad state of repair as to be a danger to the magistrates sitting therein; whether he is aware that the landlord receives £10
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 810.
  1152
  rent per annum from the Kerry County Council; and whether steps will be taken to secure that the Courthouse be put into a proper state of repair.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The landlord is quite willing, I understand, to put the Courthouse into a proper state of repair, but there is a dispute between him and the County Council as to the terms of the lease.

  Irish National Schools—Oral Examinations in Irish.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why oral examinations in Irish of pupils in national schools have not been held for months after the annual examinations; whether, in order to have this work satisfactorily done, he will suggest the appointment of additional examiners in Irish.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Additional inspectors have been appointed, and the examinations of all schools will shortly be completed.

  Disease amongst Bees in Ireland.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to say what legislative steps he proposes to take in order to secure the stamping out of foul brood disease amongst bees in Ireland in view of its spread.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I cannot at present supplement my answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 23rd June on this subject.† Legislation this session is impracticable.

  Kerry and the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to resolutions passed at public meetings held in Tralee, at which the clergy, county councillors, and district councillors attended, protesting against the inaction of the Board in Kerry, and demanding the co-option of a representative man from Kerry on the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 265.

  1153
  Board and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event of a vacancy occurring in the membership of the Congested Districts Board, selection will be made of one who is resident in Kerry or is at least thoroughly acquainted with the problems and needs of that county.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answers to the first and second inquiries are in the affirmative. I cannot make any announcement in respect to a future appointment until a vacancy occurs.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: Cannot you appoint the Bishop of Ross to represent the whole of the South of Ireland?
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question was raised during the debates on the Land Bill, and attention was called to the fact that Kerry was unrepresented. But I cannot possibly go beyond the answer I have given.

  Cost of Extra Police in Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Government have applied to the Sligo County Council for the sum of £1,500 to cover the cost of extra police stationed in the southern division of that county during the past two years; and whether, in view of the fact that it was owing to the action of the grand jury and against the protests of the County Council this expenditure has been incurred, he will devise some means by which the ratepayers may be relieved from the payment of this tax.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no power to relieve the county of the charge in question. The expenditure was not incurred by any action on the part of the grand jury.

  Pollution of the Liffey.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact of the continuous poisoning of fish in the waters of the River Liffey, caused by poisonous fluid being allowed to be
  1154
  discharged into the river; whether the attention of the Board of Conservators has been called to this fact; and what steps if any, he proposes to take to put a stop to the practice complained of, and save from destruction these waters as a salmon and trout river.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An analysis of the contaminated water was recently made, but nothing injurious to fish was found. The Department of Agriculture has instituted fresh inquiries in respect of a case of alleged poisoning of fish by sewage contamination within the past few days.

  Meath Rate Collector.
  *MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware, that, in consequence of representations from the Local Government Board as to the necessity of taking steps to compel the rate collectors to use greater diligence in the lodgment of rates and otherwise to comply with the regulations of that Board, the County Council of Meath, after investigation by its Finance Committee, suspended one of the collectors unanimously early this year; that the Board removed the suspension to enable this officer to complete his current collection, intimating that on its completion it would be open to the Council to again suspend him, which the Council did, whereupon the Local Government Board again removed his suspension; and whether, seeing that the County Council has intimated its inability to maintain official discipline in consequence of the Local Government Board's action, he will direct the Local Government Board to reconsider its decision.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are substantially as stated. But I am making further inquiry into certain features of this case, and shall be obliged if the hon. Member will repeat his Question next week.

  River Shannon Fisheries.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how much money has been paid since the year 1834 by the Board of Works, either

  1155
  as purchase or compensation, to fishery owners on the River Shannon; whether the Board of Works have become by this means the owners of a great portion of said river; and, if so, will those claims be upheld so that bogus claims to fishery rights may not be entertained during the purchase of land adjoining that river under the new Land Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Over £16,000. The Commissioners are owners of the eel fisheries from Lough Allen to Castleconnell. They have no intention of allowing other persons to claim fishing rights to which they are entitled.

  Irish Equivalent Grant.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the computation of the amount of the Equivalent Grant payable to Ireland and Scotland on the passing of the English Education Act, 1902, the population of London (which city is being dealt with in a separate measure) was omitted or was included by the Treasury.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In calculating the amount of the Irish Equivalent Grant, the population of London was taken into account.

  Gordon-Bennett Race—Destruction of Films in the Post.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint of the directors of the Empire Palace Theatre Company, Dublin, as to the loss or destruction of a negative of the speed trials held in connection with the Gordon-Bennett race which was handed in at the College Green Office, Dublin, for transmission to London; and, if so, will he state under what authority and circumstances was the letter packet opened subsequent to the removal of its outer covering in the post office, notwithstanding the precautionary open memorandum wrapped around the box containing the negatives inside the outer covering, and what compensation do the postal authorities intend to offer the Empire Palace Theatre Company, Dublin, for the loss sustained.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): My attention has been called to the case referred to. I find that the packet in question reached the Returned Letter Office in London without the address label, and also without the outer wrapper which the sender states bore the address. I have been unable to ascertain how this outer wrapper became detached in transit; but the packet bears indications of having been very insecurely fastened. It was opened in ordinary course for the purpose of ascertaining the address of the sender, but I regret that the officer who dealt with it also opened the box containing the films without suspecting the nature of the contents. The packet was sent by letter post unregistered, and I am not therefore in a position to pay compensation for the damage.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether, when the packet was handed in, it did not bear instructions that it was not to be opened except in a dark room?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have said so, but unfortunately the outer covering bearing that instruction became detached and the instruction was not on the parcel when it reached the hands of the officer who dealt with it. I have looked into the matter personally and seen the package.

  Portarlington Postal Assistant.
  *MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state what were the conditions of service which precluded payment of a gratuity to Miss Blanc, late assistant Portarlington Post Office, in view of the fact that this official had twenty-eight years service, gave her whole time to her duties, and that the remuneration paid her came out of moneys voted by Parliament.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Miss Blanc was paid out of an allowance made to the Postmaster of Portarlington, and was not in the service of the Department. Persons employed in this capacity are not entitled to a gratuity on retirement, and I have no power whatever to grant either a pension or a gratuity. That rests with the Treasury, and in such a case as this

  1157
  they also have no power to grant one or the other.
  *MR. DELANY: On what authority does the right hon. Gentleman make the statement that Miss Blanc was retired "because no longer capable of discharging her duties efficiently?"
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot argue the matter.

  Imperial Defence.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will furnish an approximate account of the total cost of Imperial Defence, including India and the Crown Colonies, and excluding the self-governing Colonies; also the total cost, approximately, of the Diplomatic and Consular Service to Great Britain and Ireland.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am not able to give this information, but if the hon. Member will repeat the Question later on I will inquire what can be done.

  Colonial Competition with British Industries.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Government of Canada has given bounties on lead, and that of New Zealand is about to organise the sale of New Zealand mutton in competition with English mutton; and, if so, whether the Government will take measures to protect British producers of lead and mutton against this unfair competition, in the same manner as they have protected the West Indian sugar planters.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no official information on the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Pay of Government Employees.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  1158
  whether the proposed inquiry into the fiscal policy of the country will include the consideration of such higher pay to all persons employed under Government as will meet the higher price of food and other articles.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admire the hon. Gentleman's thirst for information, but he really wishes to have every subject in which he is interested hitched on to the inquiry. I do not think that would be an expedient course.
  MR. WEIR: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Colonial Secretary has stated that food will be dearer and wages higher?
  MR. FLAVIN: Better begin by increasing the wages of Cabinet Ministers.

  Fiscal Returns
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in connection with the Fiscal Inquiry, the statistical departments of the Board of Trade or the Customs House have been required to furnish any Returns this year different from and in excess of those usually supplied and published; and whether the Government can place the forms of any such Returns on the Order Paper of the House of Commons.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the inquiry which is being conducted as to our fiscal relations with the colonies and foreign countries, any advice or information is being required from the Treasury, or whether the figures which have been asked for are being prepared entirely by the Board of Trade.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be desirable for the House to see the Returns which are in course of preparation. I have not the slightest doubt that there will be valuable suggestions made to supplement these Returns, and I think it will be desirable to wait until they are put into the hands of Members before any further suggestions are made.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will they be in the

  1159
  hands of Members any considerable time before the end of this session; otherwise, what opportunity shall we have of obtaining this additional information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hon. Members will retain the power of reading, thinking, and inwardly digesting, even when the House is up.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But not of asking and getting.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite ready to consider any suggestions that are made, whether the House is sitting or not.
  MR. LOUGH: Can the Returns be placed on the Order Paper of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that is very desirable.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see that at this stage of the proceedings anybody is concerned as to the particular methods by which any figures we may be able to lay before the House are being collected. If they prove to be insufficient or unsatisfactory, we shall be glad to supplement them. We are doing our best to make the information we are supplying satisfactory.
  SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the exact terms of reference to the Departments?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman is most unreasonable. Perhaps he is not alone in that. Why should a Cabinet inquiry of this kind be conducted on formal lines which are quite appropriate to a Royal Commission or a Committee of this House, but which would be most inappropriate and inconvenient with regard to an investigation such as we are conducting?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is not the reply to the right hon. Gentleman this—that the inquiry is being conducted, not for the benefit of the
  1160
  Cabinet, but for the benefit of the whole country?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I trust the whole country will benefit by the inquiry; but in the meanwhile it is an inquiry by the Cabinet for the Cabinet.

  Administration of Ecclesiastical Funds—Poverty of the Clergy.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, having regard to the poverty of many of the clergy of the Established Church of England and Wales, and the importance of making adequate provision for the maintenance of the parochial ministry, His Majesty's Government will advise the early appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the present distribution and administration of ecclesiastical funds and properties, the necessary or possible measure of re-adjustment of episcopal and other ecclesiastical endowments, together with methods of securing such re-adjustment, and into other schemes for benefiting the pecuniary condition of the clergy; and to report thereon without delay.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this Question is substantially in agreement with the Question which the hon. Member put last year. I then replied that I entirely agreed with him about the poverty of the clergy, but I could not assent to the appointment of the Royal Commission. Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the work of diminishing this evil is being actively carried on by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and, in the case of very small livings, by Queen Anne's Bounty. If the hon. Member will look at the Report he will see how considerable are the endowments contributed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and how substantial are the amounts contributed from private sources.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, after what he has just said, he proposes to proceed with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill, which virtually proposes to take away from what is available for the augmentation of small livings a capital sum of £30,000 or £40,000 in order to increase the staff of the Ecclesiastical Commission,

  1161
  which is already one of the most expensive departments of the State?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is important to proceed with that Bill.

  Sugar Imports.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now announce for the guidance of sugar importers whether the usual August contracts for sugars from Austria and Hungary can be entered into this year; and whether, seeing that exporters from those countries can make delivery late in the month, the Government will undertake that no difficulties will be placed in the way of such sugars being landed under any provision of the Sugar Convention Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is nothing in the Convention, or in any provision of the Sugar Convention Bill, that can give rise, as far as I know, to any impediment to the importation of sugar from Austria or Hungary in existing circumstances, either now or after the Convention comes into force on 1st September, provided the sugar be accompanied by such certificate as to origin as may be prescribed.
  MR. LOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Convention has condemned the system which existed in Austria and Hungary and the matter has not been cleared up in recent Papers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope it will be cleared up by the Answer which I have just given to the House, which I believe to be accurate.

  Shipping Agreements
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, have His Majesty's Government now completed the agreement they had come to on 30th September, 1902, with the American International Mercantile Marine Association, and have they completed the Agreement with the Cunard Company for subsidies to those two bodies; and in view of the delays that have occurred, can he now undertake that these agreements shall be laid upon the Table of this House, and an adequate
  1162
  opportunity be afforded for their discussion within any definite time.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: The first of the agreements mentioned by the hon. Member is not yet finally settled. The second only awaits the approval of the shareholders of the Cunard Company, who have to be consulted as to the necessary changes in the Articles of Association. I bear in mind the pledge, which I have more than once given, that an opportunity shall be given for discussion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now state any definite time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid not. The Government are only one of the parties to negotiations, and we cannot fix the time when these negotiations are likely to be brought to a successful issue.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In what form will the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say without further consideration, but I do not think there should be any difficulty in finding a proper method of doing so.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what will be the business on the unassigned days of this week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow the Irish Land Bill stands for Third Reading, as the first order. We shall then take the Committee Resolution on the Military Loans Bill, and next in order the Scotch Licensing Bill, the Employment of Children Bill, and Naval Works (Committee). That will be the order on the Order Paper. On Wednesday I shall put down the Third Reading of the London (Education) Bill, and further stages of Bills now advanced after that; and on Thursday, the Foreign Office Vote and Class 5. On Friday I shall probably take the Military Loans Bill Second Reading, and I shall put next in

  1163
  order the South African Loans Bill, Second Reading. I hope the House will regard that as a provisional suggestion, and not as a specific pledge.
  MR. BRYCE: Was it not intimated that the South African Loans Bill would be the first order when it came on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If any promise of that kind was made it will be fulfilled. I have forgotten if I gave any pledge.
  MR. BRYCE: I am sure it will be the general feeling that it should be made the first order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any final arrangement has been made as to the Second Reading of the Sugar Convention Bill and the Irish Development Grant Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can give no forecast as regards the Irish Development Grant Bill, but I hope to take the Second Reading of the Sugar Convention Bill early next week.

  POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE BILL.
  Reported, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence:
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]
  Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]

  PATRIOTIC FUND.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I wish to ask whether this Bill has not been put down by inadvertence to-day, inasmuch as this is the day allotted to Supply, and under Standing Orders no business other than Supply can be taken before midnight. If my hon. friend brings in this Bill will not the day cease to be a day allotted to Supply?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Clearly the Standing Order does not mean that nothing shall be done except Supply before midnight, otherwise we could not take Questions and unopposed Returns and other business of that nature. The word business as
  1164
  quoted from the Standing Order means Orders of the Day and notices of Motion and such Motions as are usually put down with the Orders of the Day. It does not include a Motion like this taken at the commencement of public business.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): In asking leave to introduce a Bill to reorganise the administration of the Patriotic Fund, I may say at once I do not propose to detain the House at any length, as I am proceeding under what is known as the Ten Minutes Rule. The object of the Bill is to reconstitute the body which has the administration of funds subscribed to provide for the widows, children, and other dependents of those who lost their lives in the service of the Crown. Those funds since 1854 have been administered by the Royal Patriotic Commission. The powers of the Commission have been modified and extended since that date, and in the interval it has accumulated a very considerable property, including an invested sum of £1,250,000. It also has a valuable property at Clapham. The constitution of the Commission is of a dual character, and it is in no sense popular. It consists of a number of ex-officio members and of members appointed by the Crown for life, and therefore it cannot be said to be in general touch with the country. Mainly on that account, I believe, there has been very considerable public dissatisfaction with the administration of the funds by the Patriotic Commissioners I would not for a moment attempt to lay down whether that dissatisfaction is justifiable or not; but I think it will be agreed that the main cause of the dissatisfaction is what I think may be justly called the want of sympathy between the country and the Commission, whose operations and administration are of a rather secret character. In the administration of a large fund of this character it is impossible to satisfy all the allottees. Complaints are made in public in consequence, while the answers given by the Patriotic Commissioners do not reach the ears of the public. At the same time, it is only right to say that no definite complaint or accusation has ever really been brought home to the Patriotic Commissioners, and the Joint Committee presided over by Lord James,

  1165
  which recently investigated the question, spoke most highly of the financial administration of the Commissioners. I think the House will most gladly recognise the amount of unselfish work which the Commissioners have given to the carrying out of their duties, and also the zeal and ability with which the Duke of Cambridge has presided over the proceedings of the Commission. When the question was first taken up, His Royal Highness wrote to the Prime Minister to say that the Commissioners welcomed inquiry, and no question of their charter would be allowed to stand in the way of any action that might be decided upon, and the Prime Minister admitted—and the House will agree with him that the country owed a great debt of gratitude to those who had administered the fund. If the present Bill is accepted by the House, I hope it will be in a spirit of recognition of that debt of gratitude, and as not implying any slight whatever upon the Commissioners.
  The public interest in this question was brought to a head by the outbreak of the South African War—an interest which was very largely focussed and expressed by the hon. Member for Devonport, who has taken a continuous interest in the question, has asked many questions on it, and was a member of the Committee on whose Report the Bill is founded. By the interest he has displayed, both in the legislative and administrative conduct of the question, the hon. Member has entitled himself to the confidence of the country and of the House. Owing to the war, several funds were started, mainly by great organs of the Press, the Daily Telegraph, the Scotsman, and the Daily Mail, and, public attention having thus been drawn to the existing discontent, a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Henn Collins was appointed to examine into the administration of the funds, and this was followed by the Joint Committee, of which Lord James was the Chairman. Mr. Justice Henn Collins's Committee recommended that a State pension should be granted, and, acting on that, a State pension of 5s. to widows, with an extra sum for each child, was granted. But naturally there was overlapping between the different
  1166
  funds, and consequently another inquiry was decided upon. Lord James's Committee recommended that there should be two Pension Boards formed—one for the Army and one for the Navy—and that these Boards should administer the State pensions and all locally subscribed, funds, as well as the property of the Patriotic Commission. But when the question came to be investigated it was not considered desirable to create these two official Pension Boards. It was thought better to leave the administration of the State pensions in the hands of the official bodies of the Admiralty and the War Office, who have the necessary machinery and all the information requisite for their administration, and to create one body which shall be in close touch with both the Admiralty and the War Office, but which shall at the same time contain such an element of popular representation as will enable it to command the confidence of the public. We believe this plan will be simpler than that recommended by the Joint Committee, and that it will tend to facilitate administration and economy if we have the Admiralty and the War Office in co ordination with this one body instead of having two Pension Boards. On this principle the Bill proposes to create a single body—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! I think the hon. Member is exceeding the usual limit of time—ten minutes.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I wish to explain the Bill, and was not aware there was any Rule of ten minutes.
  *MR. SPEAKER: A brief statement is allowed, and ten minutes is generally considered to be the limit.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Am I not to make any explanation of the Bill at all, Sir?
  *MR SPEAKER: If the hon. Member can conclude in a minute or two, but not more than that.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I imagine this is a thing which interests the House. The Bill creates a single body which will be called the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. That body will be constituted of

  1167
  six members appointed by the Crown, of whom one will be the President; then there will be the Chairman of every County Council throughout Great Britain and Ireland, every Lord Mayor and Mayor of county boroughs in England and Ireland, and the Lord Provosts and Provosts of towns of over 20,000 inhabitants in Scotland. In addition this body will co-opt six further members, and there will be up to seven members also co-opted to represent any local funds which are specially created.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Where will they meet?
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the corporation itself would meet once in every year; the official members would be appointed for three-year terms only, and would retire at the end of the three years. In the first instance, the twelve appointed members would be all appointed by the Crown, as it was evidently impossible to co-opt members until the body was created. After the first term of three years—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is exceeding the limits allowed by the Rule.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the Bill requires an elaborate explanation before the particulars are given, and then the particulars are to be gone into in detail it ought not to be introduced under this Rule.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the corporation would appoint an executive committee, who would do the business of the corporation. He hoped the Bill would be in the hands of the hon. Members to-morrow morning. He might say that if this Bill were regarded as of a contentious character it could not pass this session, but he trusted it might meet with general approval.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reorganise the administration of the Patriotic Fund."—(Mr. Pretyman.)
  MR. KEARLEYthought the House would agree that a Bill so complicated should not be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, but, at the
  1168
  same time, he hoped hon. Members would realise the great necessity of passing a Bill of this character. He understood that the new body would differ in a marked degree from the old, and would be more democratic in character. Any new body, unless it had the public confidence, was bound to fail, and the only way to obtain that confidence was to administer the funds in accordance with the wishes of those who supplied them. The money which had been subscribed in past years had been subscribed with the idea that it should by degrees be completely exhausted on behalf of those for whom it was intended, but that had not been the policy of the Patriotic Commission, who had endeavoured to husband or board their resources.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pretyman and Mr. Arnold-Forster.

  PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.
  To reorganise the administration of the Patriotic Fund, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

  SUPPLY.
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £617,101, 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 Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers Pension Fund, Ireland."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLcalled attention to the state and situation of some of the buildings of the Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin. There were four colleges—three of them

    1169
    were denominational, and one was a Government concern and was undenominational. The denominational colleges in 1891 were first put on a proper footing and endowed by Parliament. They were then all freehold, and large grants were made by which the freeholds were granted to the denominations. A very large sum of money, something like £80,000, was spent on the denominational colleges at the time, but when they came to the undenominational college it was a different thing altogether. The undenominational and Government buildings were in a locality part of which was haunted by some of the worst characters of the city, from whom blasphemous and immoral language was heard. This, surely was not a fit residence for students who would become teachers in national schools. A deputation waited on the Chief Secretary in 1901 with regard to the matter, and the Chief Secretary practically supported their demand. In 1902 the Treasury expressed regret at being unable, in consequence of the pressure on the finances of the country, to place the money on the Votes, but in 1903 a wholly different position was taken up, and the Treasury then stated that they had given careful consideration to the application, but had not been convinced that such expenditure was necessitated by the actual condition of the college, and that, even if it were otherwise, the danger of the precedent would be so great that they were not prepared to take the matter up. In view of the facts which he had stated, he submitted that the Chief Secretary ought again to approach the Treasury, declaring that these students were housed in insanitary dwellings in the centre of an immoral district. That was not a fit position in which to place the men and women who in the future would be the national teachers of Ireland. Without going into the question of denominationalism, he contended that the college in Marlborough Street had a right to be put in a position of equality with the denominational colleges.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLdesired, as one who had spent two years in the college referred to, to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The
    1170
    neighbourhood was certainly not a proper one in which to train those who had to discharge the all-important national duty of educating the boys and girls of the country. The college, which had done excellent work in the past, was undenominational; it might almost be called a national institution. Students of all classes and creeds had gathered there, and had found that, though they might differ politically and theologically, they could work together in the great national work of improving the condition of the country. He believed that if Irishmen could only meet together more, and discuss in an intelligent and reasonable manner various subjects which now engendered heat, they would soon rise above many of the prejudices which tended to injure the character of the country. The question of the better training of teachers was a very large one. The people of Ireland were hoping soon to have placed before them a great educational scheme which would enable the children of the peasantry to pass from the national school, through the intermediate institution to the University In such a, scheme—and until it was established Ireland would never advance to the position warranted by the genius and intelligence of her sons—one of the most important features would be the establishment of the best means of training the men into whose hands would be placed the teaching of 90 per cent. of the children of the country, and no system would yield the best results which did not bring the young men into some connection with the University. It was not to the benefit of education that teachers should be trained Catholics and Protestants separately; they ought to be brought into touch with the higher thought, wider views and greater tolerance afforded by the University. His idea would be to have a great national University, to which all classes in the country could go without any sacrifice of principle and secure the highest education possible; and in such a University special provision should be made for the training of teachers.
    With regard to the general question of education in Ireland it was felt that the present system had lamentably failed; instead of enabling those who were taught to advance in trade and com-

    1171
    merce its result had been to turn Irishmen away from all knowledge of or interest in their own country. The Board in Dublin consisted of twenty men—ten Catholics and ten Protestants—selected with little or no regard to their qualifications for the office. Too many had been selected because they were political partisans. That was not a proper way in which to form a Board by which the education of a country was to be administered. The members were not representative of the people; they were not responsible to or officially represented in Parliament; and they were able to disregard the demands of those entitled to speak for the educational needs of the country. He desired to make a direct attack on the National Board, who, he contended, had done little or nothing during the sixty years of their existence for the real benefit of education. This National Board had had a free hand with full powers to do as they pleased two or three years ago, but after the Commission had sat and various discussions taken place in this House, they found that at last they must change the old system in order to keep abreast of the times. When the merest smattering of science was introduced where had they to go for the men to teach science? They had to come across to England and Scotland. He blamed the men of the past whose system was so utterly wanting that no men were trained in Ireland capable of taking up these positions. It was a disgrace to the educational institutions in Ireland that a few years ago when the technical department was established they had to go across to Scotland and England in order to find men to fill the highly salaried positions in that department. That was a proof that those institutions had totally and wholly neglected the work placed in their charge. There was not in England, Scotland, Canada, America, Germany, France, or any country in the world, a system of education administered like the Irish system. Many members of the National Board only came to the meetings whenever there was a "job" on, in order to vote their men to these positions. Until some change was made which would place the education of Irish children in the hands of the Irish people, the Irish child would never make any progress. He hoped the National Board
    1172
    would very soon cease to mismanage the work of Irish education. He trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland would see that the day had passed when such Boards should be entrusted with important work like the education of the Irish children.
    With regard to education itself, how were they to get in Ireland a system of education which would enable the child of the peasant to take its place in the life of the country. How were they to get a system which would enable Irish children to come forward in the industrial and commercial world to compete with Englishmen, Scotchmen, Germans, and Americans? How were they to raise the Irish peasant child; from the position in which a bad system of education had placed him? They must first of all place the management of the educational system in the hands of the people themselves. It was useless to his mind to bring forward systems of education if they had not at the same time a well trained, a highly qualified, and a well paid body of men to administer that system. By this arrangement alone could they secure that Irish boys and girls should rise in the future to that eminence to which he thought their natural ability and genius entitled them. He only wished on this occasion to deal with the main points and policy of the educational system, leaving the details for the present. He had already suggested that it would be absolutely essential if they wished to improve the educational system of Ireland to give the future Irish teachers an opportunity of being trained in contact with University men where their education would be improved, and when they would become better citizens. He wished to impress upon the Chief Secretary that it was absolutely necessary that the men in whose hands would be placed the daily lives of half a million of Irish children ought to have everything that was possible done for them in order to give them a good education. They had already discussed the subject of the National Board. He had that day put a Question to the Chief Secretary in reference to the delay in regard to the oral examinations in Irish as compared with the written examinations, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had given him a satisfactory reply. An attempt was made in regard to Colonel Moore's school to prevent the teachers being paid the salaries due to them for the year's work.

    1173
    Colonel Moore said that 600 pupils had been attending the evening school and great enthusiasm was aroused in the work. Here was the one thing which brightened the lives of young children and made their evenings more entertaining, and yet the National Board tried by every means in its power to check such a system and refused to pay the salaries of the teachers. He hoped the Board would never again take up the absurd and untenable position which they took up in regard to this matter.
    He wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a few important matters which he hoped would tend to improve the educational life of the children in Ireland. He would give some striking extracts from the Irish inspector's reports dealing with the statffing of the Irish schools, heating, sanitary accommodation, and other matters, and when the right hon. Gentleman heard them, he thought he would agree that a strong case had been made out for doing something to improve the conditions which existed at the present time. Mr. Downing, chief inspector, reports—
    "(1) Cabins of the rudest type are still to be met with as the habitations of national schools. There remain numerous cases of uncomfortable school houses and insanitary and inadequate premises.
    "(2) Complaints are frequently made of the discomfort of school rooms in winter from want of proper heating.
    "(3) The entire absence of a playground is a common defect."
    Those who had seen the Irish child coming barefooted into a school with an earthen floor, broken windows and skylight, where the child had to stand shivering the whole day long, knew the necessity for something being done immediately. How was it possible that such a child could give his attention to educational work. It was an absolute waste of time to attend school under such conditions. It was cruelty that a little Irish boy should be subjected to such conditions, which would be a dis-
    1174
    grace even to a barbarous nation. It would be a disgrace to those who were sent to the House of Commons to discharge national work if they did not do everything in their power to make the conditions under which Irish boys spent their tender years better and more favour able than they were at the present time. Mr. Dalton says—
    "(1) There are no local organisations, no funds, and consequently no regular arrangements for the periodical and timely renovation of the large majority of school houses.
    "(2) No regular provision is made for the heating of the schools during winter. I was surprised and pained during the last three months to witness the total disregard of the most elementary claims of the health and comfort of the children that prevails in this respect. During the month of October last I visited over sixty schools of the district, and everyone knows that the weather throughout the month was exceptionally wet and inclement, yet, in the schools visited incidentally, I came on only three that had got fires."
    What did hon. Members think of only three schools out of sixty having fires on a bitter cold winter's day. They might spend money on education and new systems for the training of teachers, but under the conditions he had mentioned education was impossible, He had numerous other extracts from the reports of inspectors, who came into contact with the lives of the children, and almost all referred to the entire absence of proper sanitary accommodation. Dr. Moran stated that—
    "The out offices, instead of being an advantage, are in some instances a dangerous source of disease and death."
    This was a condition of things that ought not to prevail in connection with the Irish educational system, and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would consider these matters now that he had money at his disposal which could be devoted to Irish national education. England was last year voted £1,400,000 additional for improving the education of the children of the country. Scotland, as a result, without any trouble got a further grant of £212,000, and Ireland

    1175
    £185,000. Already a considerable portion of that had been allocated. He did not wish to say one word offensive of Trinity College, Dublin, but it had been pretty well looked after in the past. Fancy a great institution like Trinity College, with all its vast resources, coming forward and, with beggarly words on its lips, claiming money that ought to go to improve the conditions he had described! It claimed that £5,000 more should go to the outdoor relief, in the matter of education, of the aristocrats who attended Trinity, while the country was denied a national University. He must say that Trinity College had failed in its duty as an Irish educational institution. When a technical department was established two or three years ago, those at the head of the College had to go all over the world looking for men to do the very ordinary work of managing the department. Fancy Germany going over to America or England to look for men in that way when starting a new department! Trinity had been held up as a University with an honourable educational record. It had done nothing whatever to increase the industry and commerce of the country, or to raise the national life. It might have afforded a few aristocrats an opportunity of getting their livings in various parts of the British Empire, but, outside that, it had done nothing to raise the national life. It was an absolute blank and nullity in the country. With regard to the equivalent grant due to Ireland, it might be said that they wanted £210,000 to bring the education of Ireland up to a proper standard. If he were to go into details, he should say that they wanted not only £210,000 but £500,000, to place Irish education on a proper footing. He thought he was right in saying that the Education Department in Dublin had already sent in estimates for £300,000. In the face of that fact, and what had been said by inspectors, teachers, and managers of schools, he thought it would be admitted that the larger sum which he mentioned would be wanted. He had received numerous letters from managers of schools. One of his correspondents had urged him to endeavour to get an equivalent grant
    1176
    for primary education, which would meet present wants. The wants were principally two—in the first place to get the average attendance, which qualified for an assistant, reduced to fifty, and secondly to have the schools vested in trustees, kept in repair by the Commissioners, and supplied with fuel in the winter. The custom of bringing a sod of turf under the arm was barbarous. Many of the schools would go to ruin unless they were kept up by the National Board. The people were too poor to contribute to their maintenance. Many of the letters he received demanded that this money should be devoted to proper teaching, and to improving the sanitary, conditions of the schools.
    Contrasting the position in England with that of Ireland, he pointed out that in England the cost per pupil in average attendance was £3 0s. 2d., apart from the £1,400,000 voted last year. In London it was £4 0s. 5½d. per pupil in average attendance, while in Ireland it was £2 7s. per pupil. He thought every Member must agree that these figures showed the great necessity that existed for doing something to improve the condition of the Irish schools. He thought that the Chief Secretary had admitted that it was necessary to do something in regard to reducing the average attendance to fifty. The managers of schools throughout Ireland, and the teachers, had unanimously demanded this, and he thought the National Board had also demanded it. The only question remaining was that of money. Now there was money at the disposal of the Chief Secretary, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly say that so important a question should be deferred further. The head of the Irish Education Department had stated that it was absolutely impossible for any one teacher to do really effective work with an average attendance of sixty pupils. That average attendance would often mean a maximum attendance of ninety. These were divided into six, seven, or eight grades, and it was absolutely impossible for a teacher to devote his time to the whole of the children. It was necessary that a second teacher should be appointed when there was an average attendance of fifty pupils. In England they did not

    1177
    require more than an average attendance of fifty pupils. The Irish schools were small and scattered, and the attendance must of necessity be very poor. If Ireland was denied the proper number of teachers, the children must suffer in the education they received. When the land question was under discussion, he tried to get a little for the Irish boy while he was at school. It was really pitiable to see the little boys when they went out travelling with their bare feet over the gravel roads, and trying to amuse themselves. If they wished to develop the physique of the people they should provide the boys with proper playgrounds where they would be under the supervision of the teachers. If the landlords had any interest in Irish education, the very least they might give would be an acre of land to every school on their estates. He trusted that something would be done in that direction.
    Dealing with the question of pensions paid to Irish teachers, the hon. Member said £1,300,000 was voted some twenty-two years ago for pensions. Before that period between £10,000 and £20,000 was given yearly to the payment of the equivalent of pensions The £1,300,000 was not Imperial, but Irish money. It was invested at 3 per cent., and the income went to pay pensions to teachers. From 1879 to 1888 not one penny of Imperial money was given to pensions for Irish teachers, though previously £10,000 was given yearly as a contribution for retiring allowances. The system under which the pension scheme was worked was disgraceful and discreditable. He knew of a teacher, who had passed first, was an LL D. of the Royal University, and had spent forty years in the service, who only got a pension of £34 a year. Why, an ordinary policeman, with only twenty-five years service, got a pension of £50 a year! A short time ago the Chief Secretary, in reply to a Question he put as to whether the Pension Fund would be revised in the near future, said that it was not at present under investigation; that the last revision had been in 1901, and that there would not be another until 1906, He had the strongest reason for believing that that was hardly
    1178
    correct. The Education Office in Dublin never heard one word of revision in 1901, nor had the heads of the Department, nor the teachers. He was assured that the last revision was in 1897–8. Another matter to which he wished to call the serious attention of the Chief Secretary was the purchase and sale of the stocks of the Pension Fund by the men in charge of it. In 1899 stocks were sold at a loss of £13,739, and in the very same year they had an income of £127,791 over and above what was required to meet the expenditure of the year. Rumours were afloat that the money was taken away by some gentleman connected with the fund. He could understand selling stocks if money was required to meet current expenses, but when there was a surplus that year of £127,000 the matter required the very serious consideration of the Chief Secretary.
    He wished to touch on the question of the inspectorate. The inspectors had very important duties entrusted to them. They had to see that the teaching was good and efficient, but there was also something to be said as to the manner in which they carried out their work in the schools. He was sorry that he was constrained to mention one inspector, whose conduct in Dublin was simply disgraceful. He had heard of cases where that gentleman had examined convent schools, during which his behaviour was so disgustingly rude to the nuns that they had to retire and leave him to examine as he pleased. In another case he had been so rude that the managers who visited the school a short time afterwards wrote to the Board of Education that that inspector would not be admitted to the school again. The gentleman in question was named Mr. Dickie. A man who set such an example of boorishness was unfit for the work, and it was to be hoped that he would be made to feel that that was not the way to conduct himself. He had had numbers of letters from teachers in evening schools complaining that they had not been paid for the results of their teaching in these schools, which had done excellent work. They in Ireland hailed the establishment of these schools with pleasure, and every Irishman wished to do everything in his

    1179
    power to facilitate the work done in them. Young boys had often to leave the day schools at a very early age, and the evening schools afforded them an opportunity of continuing their education. He trusted the Chief Secretary would consider this matter, and do away with the dilatoriness in the payment of the teachers. Now that they were about to settle the land question and get the land for the people, it was absolutely essential to the future progress and prosperity of Ireland that the boys and girls should be afforded every opportunity of being trained for the battle of life when they came to manhood and womanhood and of being fitted to compete with Scotchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £617,001, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.)
    MR. BOLANDsaid he wished to associate himself in the strongest possible manner with what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the constitution of the National Board of Education. The system of a nominated Board which consisted of men chosen, not for their educational acquirements, but because they were Protestants or Catholics, was such an absurdity in these days that he hoped that the Committee would thoroughly disapprove of it before the debate was closed. He insisted that a revision should be made of the staffing of the schools, by which there should be one teacher for every fifty children. In Ireland, where emigration was going on to such a great extent, and the difficulties of the children attending school were great, the school population was declining. These facts should be recognised by varying the staffs; otherwise, not only would Irish children lose the advantages of a proper education, but the services of many of the teachers who had done good work in the past would have to be dispensed with. Again, it was not possible for the children in the country districts in Ireland to readily attend these house—hovels, some of them—which stood in the place of schools, if they were kept in an insanitary and
    1180
    ruinous condition, and with no proper heating apparatus. The children had to come to school often in wet clothes, sit all day in them, and then go back home in teeming rain. He hoped this serious condition of things would engage the attention of the Chief Secretary. Again, he believed the National Board of Education could improve their position in the eyes of the people if they would do something to associate themselves with the industrial development of the country. They should organise Arts and Crafts exhibits in different districts of the country, and by that and other means show a real interest in the awakening of the industrial life of Ireland which was so happily evidencing itself.
    Dr. Starkie, Resident Commissioner for Education in Ireland, delivered an address last year before the British Association on education in Ireland. He was not concerned much with that gentleman's position in the educational world, though he gave him credit for great ability, which he believed had been shown in his grasp of great educational problems. To show the methods employed by Dr. Starkie as regarded his own countrymen, he would read one or two extracts. Referring to the application of compulsory education in Ireland, Dr. Starkie said—
    "It is my duty to point out that the methods of enforcing the Act are ludicrously unsuited to this country, where, as a celebrated writer has put it, 'from the highest to the lowest, forget-fulness to public duty is the rule of life.'"
    It was most unfortunate that a gentleman in the position of Resident Commissioner should allow himself, before a meeting of the British Association, to attempt to lower the esteem of his own countrymen in that manner. He desired to bring before the Committee some of the extracts quoted by Dr. Starkie, which reflected on Catholic school managers in Ireland. He did not say that in reading those extracts Dr. Starkie intended to mislead his audience, but it was most unfortunate that he had not given the extracts in their entirety, as they led people to imagine that they were confirmation of the character of the supervision exercised by the Catholic managers over their schools. The following was one extract—
    "With a few conspicuous exceptions, managers take no active part in the inner working of the schools; and, viewed as a whole, the

    1181
    interest which they manifest can scarcely be said to be practical."
    What the Report actually said was—
    "The managers as a body show considerable concern in the welfare of the schools. They are naturally anxious, of course, to promote the educational progress of the pupils; and, as a rule, they give cordial support to the suggestions and recommendations which it becomes my duty to make."
    Then the Report proceeded with the extract quoted. Another extract read by Dr. Starkie was—
    "Practical supervision of the schools is not habitual amongst the managers."
    The Report stated—
    "The managers' attitude in this district in reference to the present system has been very satisfactory. A friendly disposition and an inclination to give every opportunity of success, even in branches to which some of them felt personally hostile or indifferent, seemed to pervade their ranks. In the beginning, when, in certain quarters, opposition was made at its introduction, some of them used their personal influence strongly in their favour."
    Then followed the extract quoted. He read those extracts fully to show how very unfair, in his opinion, it was for the Resident Commissioner in a public address to read them partially, and to convey a totally wrong impression to his audience. The unfortunate thing about it was that not a tenth of his audience would ever have an opportunity of reading a refutation of Dr. Starkie's statements. No one except those deeply interested in Irish education would study the Reports for themselves; and the English and Scottish members of the Association returned to their own countries with an unfair opinion of the Catholic managers. It was to put the other case that he had read the full extracts to the Committee.
    There were two other subjects to which he desired to direct attention. There had been great delay in forwarding building plans for national schools in country districts. The Chief Secretary might reply that the reason was that the Government were considering a larger scheme for education in Ireland; but it was most unfortunate that where the locality concerned desired to have a new school it should not be provided. The hon. Member for South Tyrone alluded to training colleges in Ireland. He would not discuss the Marlborough Street Training College, because he was not
    1182
    acquainted with it; neither would he deal with the equivalent grant. Three training colleges had been established in Ireland since 1890—viz., at Belfast, Waterford, and Limerick. He would not now say what, in his opinion, should be the proper arrangements in those colleges, if they had Catholic University education in Ireland. That was a very much larger question; but seeing that there were no University facilities for the majority of the Irish people it was a most unfortunate thing that the Government were so niggardly in regard to maintaining the training colleges that they could not be carried on in an efficient way. He believed that a sum of £ would put those colleges in the same position as the training colleges in Dublin. Although he was not prepared to say that if Ireland had further educational facilities he would approve of their position, still he hoped some attempt would be made to put them in an efficient position. He and every other Irish Member were delighted to hear that in reference to the evening school established by Colonel Moore in Connaught for the teaching of Irish language and Irish history the National Board had seen the error of it and had climbed down. In that respect, at least, Dr. Starkie had, to some extent, looked on the national requirements of the people. He certainly hoped that the National Board, instead of trying to handicap men like Colonel Moore, who desired to revive the Irish language and the teaching of Irish history, would lend them every assistance in their power. Many of them held that the best means to promote continuation schools was to excite the interest of the population; and there was nothing better qualified to excite that interest than the teaching of the Irish language. If the managers desired to have Irish classes let not the Board obstruct them in any way; and where, by means of those classes, the intellectual energies of the people were raised, new subjects would be introduced and the evening schools would be as successful in Ireland as they were in this country.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that the Committee would agree that very able and interesting speeches had been delivered on the subject of education in Ireland. Irish Members on his own side of the House were also interested

    1183
    in the subject. The hon. Member for West Kerry in his interesting speech, which was listened to with great attention, mentioned that he was in favour of denominational education.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he did not state what he was in favour of, and what he was not in favour of.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that the hon. Member stated that he was trained at Marlborough Street College; and he certainly gathered that the hon. Member was in favour of all teachers being trained together. A great many people, especially in his part of the country, thought that if they could have a system of education properly administered a great deal would have been done to settle other social questions in Ireland. The national system was originally intended to be undenominational, but by a tacit understanding it had been allowed to drift in the opposite direction; and he felt that that was responsible for the tension and friction which, he was sorry to say, existed between the various religious bodies in Ireland. He thought the Chief Secretary should do something to take up seriously the question of the national schoolhouses throughout Ireland. In the north of Ireland a large number of the schoolhouses were not tit places for children to be confined in for so many hours at a time every day. The principal fault of these houses was want of proper heating and ventilation. The houses were badly constructed, and in winter, when the windows had to be kept closed in order to keep out the cold, the atmosphere was extremely injurious. It seemed to him that very little would be required to properly heat and ventilate them, as they were more or less perfect in other respects. Another important question was the question of play grounds. It was the duty of the education authority to see that the children had proper places to play in when they were let out during school hours. That was most important, and he was very glad the hon. Member opposite had called attention to it. With regard to the Marl-borough Street College the hon. Member for South Tyrone had drawn a sufficiently touching picture of the college, but there was one point he had not touched upon which showed the inadequate provision in this college
    1184
    for exercise in wet weather. The residence of the students ought certainly to be improved, and seeing that this was the parent college of the three denominational colleges which had branched out of it, it was clearly not right that it should be in such a dilapidated condition while its children should be so flourishing.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid the question of the schools was one on which all Irish Members were united. The great difficulty with regard to the schools was the heating, but he should have thought 1s. a head on the average attendance would secure a sum amply sufficient to cover the cost of the heating arrangements. It was worth while to see that the children when they went into school were warm. When people were not properly warmed by artificial means they tried to keep up the warmth by stopping up the ventilation, which must be injurious. What the Board had to do was to ask itself would it find the money to put these schools in order or were they going to leave matters as they were. He agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Kerry that the national teachers of Ireland should be brought into touch with University life and training. As regards the proposal to spend £50,000 on the Marl-borough Street Training College that was one which should be well considered. He would not grudge any money so spent if it was treated as undenominational, and provided a proportionate amount was spent on the Catholic colleges of Ireland.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTdesired to associate himself with the appeal which had been made with regard to the Marlborough Street College. He felt it was unnecessary to attempt to convince the Chief Secretary of the justice of the claim; the right hon. Gentleman had, made himself thoroughly acquainted with the details of the question, and was convinced of the absolute need for something being done. The difficulty lay with the Treasury. During the past few weeks, however, the Committee had witnessed striking examples of the wonderfully persuasive powers of the Chief Secretary, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would exercise those powers on the Treasury so that the necessary policy in connection with this college

    1185
    might be carried out. It should be borne in mind that it was an undenominational college, and that out of 294 students only 162 were Presbyterians.
    MR. DILLONsaid it was rather late in the day for the hon. Member for South Antrim to advocate undenominational education in primary schools. On the establishment of the present system an attempt was made to introduce undenominational teaching, but Presbyterians and Irish Churchmen were as vigorously opposed to the idea as were Catholics themselves. In fact the system had no friend at all except Archbishop Whately, who, under the guise of undenominationalism and mixed teaching, sought to proselytise the Irish people. All were agreed, however, that something ought to be done to improve the condition of the schools. In many places the state of the buildings was nothing short of a scandal; it was not only a hindrance to education but a danger to the health of the children. As to the lack of heat, of which complaint had been made, it was simply a question of fires, and the supply of fuel. As to ventilation, many of the country schools were in an appalling condition. A further evil was the lack of sanitary accommodation, and the ruinous state into which some of the schools had been allowed to fall. It might be asked why the localities did not do more. Two systems of education were possible—one based primarily on local control, with local contributions, and the other based on central control, the State bearing the cost. Each system bad advantages and disadvantages which did not belong to the other. For good or for evil the Irish system had been so completely one of central control, with practically the whole cost coming from the National Exchequer, that it was idle to speak of local contributions. With local contributions there must be some kind of local control, and the question of local contributions would not arise as long as the centralised system was in full possession. But that system involved central responsibility for the condition of the schools; hence they had a right to complain of the present state of affairs. As to the whole system of education, he did not believe there was any other civilised country in the world which possessed so wretched and
    1186
    rotten a system as Ireland. The Board was an unpaid body, and its members were appointed without any reference whatever to their educational capacity or interest in the work. The only guiding principle in their selection was that there should be an equal number of Protestants and Catholics. The system of so-called national education was in reality a reversal of everything national. It was only within the last year or two that the Board, bowing before a great national agitation, had allowed some breath of nationalism to creep into the system. But even then they had recently distinguished themselves by refusing to Colonel Moore the grants which they had themselves promised to continuation schools in which Irish history and language were taught, and declaring they would not waste public money on the teaching of such a pack of rubbish. The body was really an intolerable one. There were rumours in the air that its days were numbered, and that a new system was to be established. He hoped that was the case, for the sooner the Board was destroyed the better it would be for the cause of education. It had a most ignoble record and he did not envy the Chief Secretary who had to set up its successor. A more difficult and thorny task could not be imagined, and this was a standing example of the difficulties of Irish Government which was based upon the principle that the Irish people should not have any voice in the management of their own affairs. That being so, when the Government were driven into a corner they took refuge in the appointment of a Board which must consist half of Catholics and half of Protestants, and by that method they considered the problem solved. The only remaining principle to be observed was not to allow any Nationalists on the Board, and that was a good specimen of Irish Government. This National Board was absolutely indefensible, and he hoped it would be followed by some system which would bring education more into unison with the people of Ireland.
    With regard to Dr. Starkie, that gentleman had some very interesting projects with regard to education in Ireland, but there never was a greater scandal than the oration he recently delivered in Belfast. Having read that oration and the corrected

    1187
    edition of it, if every word was absolutely accurate and true—as it was not—the delivery of that speech before the British Association marked Dr. Starkie as a man disqualified to retain his office. Dr. Starkie was charged with administering this extraordinary system of education in Ireland, and under his control there were a large number of managers and many Catholic priests among them. The first duty of a man in Dr. Starkie's position with any proper appreciation of his responsibility would be to endeavour, as far as was consistent with the due discharge of his duties, to make things work smoothly with the managers of the schools. Dr. Starkie went to Belfast, and before a large body of distinguished men from England and Scotland, who were mainly unacquainted with the details of Irish administration, delivered a most violent and outrageous philippic indicting the whole body of clerical managers of Ireland as being scandalously negligent of their duty, and as being guilty of the meanest selfishness in the discharge of their work. He was practically denouncing the whole body of managers under him, and he based his oration upon a series of reports he had received from his managers which he said had not been published. Therefore, the reports from which he quoted were confidential up to that time and were not in the hands of the managers who were attacked. When those reports were made public it was found that from the beginning to the end of his speech his extracts were garbled, and where there was anything favourable to the managers it was suppressed and only the sentences unfavourable to the managers were selected. A more grotesque parody upon public documents he had never seen in his life. Dr. Starkie's conduct in delivering such an oration became far worse and worthy of much greater censure now that they had proved beyond all question that the reports upon which he based his speech did not bear out the state merits made in his address. He thought this matter demanded the attention of the Chief Secretary. Dr. Starkie stated that the inspectors reported that the majority of the managers were quite indifferent to education, and that in many cases the schools were well-nigh
    1188
    derelict, and the only supervision given to them was that afforded by the Board's inspectors. When the reports were published it turned out that there were sixty-five inspectors' reports, which embraced the whole of Ireland. No less than forty-three or forty-four of those reports were diametrically opposed to Dr. Starkie's statement, twelve were doubtful, and only some nine or ten bore out his statement. Was not that a monstrous state of things? The worst of it was that all of that great body of men who attended the meeting of the British Association returned to England and Scotland with his statement, and had never seen the correction. Consequently, the whole public mind of those scientific men who were present had been poisoned against their system by a method which he could only describe as a "cooked" and twisted version of the reports of the Irish inspectors.
    The question of the model schools had not been raised for a number of years, but six or seven years ago had repeated debates upon this question in the House. The predecessor of the present Chief Secretary, finding that the model school system was absolutely and totally indefensible, promised an inquiry, and it was commenced. He recollected asking a Question upon the subject some five years ago, and the answer he got was that the Board and Resident Commissioner were occupied with a great inquiry as to the new method introduced into primary education in the model schools. Since then the subject appeared to have been lost sight of. What had become of that inquiry, and what did the Government intend to do in reference to it? It was unnecessary to give all the figures, but he might add that the present system was scandalous. In some of the schools the children were now educated at the cost of about £10 per head, and the attendance in some of them was absurd. There was a school in Cork built to accommodate 1,220 pupils and the attendance there was about 240 and the cost £7 per head. He understood that the Galway model school had been closed, and he did not think any one was attending it. In many other parts of Ireland these

    1189
    schools were a perfect scandal, and were kept up merely for a small number of the population, most of them being children of the well to do class. This money was consequently diverted from the teaching in the ordinary national schools and used in a most disgraceful and wasteful way upon the teaching of the children of people who did not require it. This system had been kept up against the constant protests of the Nationalist Members and he thought they were now entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intended to do in the matter.
    *MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsaid he had heard with regret the observations made by the hon. Members for South Down and South Antrim with reference to the desire which pervaded the North of Ireland for a united education. He felt that as a Belfast man there never was a greater misrepresentation than to suppose that Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Methodists, had any desire for mixed education. He scarcely knew a single Presbyterian church that had not attached to it a Presbyterian school with a Presbyterian master, and the same was the case in the Methodist and Episcopalian Churches. The claim for united education put forward was to prevent the Catholic people from getting their fair share of the money granted for this country. To-morrow a Bill would pass its Third Reading which would produce a marvellous revolution in Ireland. The next important step was to educate the people. The system must be reconstructed. The dominant minority had had their way so far as education was concerned, and it appeared to him that in order to elevate and improve Ireland it was essential that they should reconstruct the education of the country. Three-fourths of the people were discontented with the present system, and they must have a Catholic University for themselves. The Queen's Colleges were admirably adapted for the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians were pleased with Trinity College. There were three-fourths of the people of Ireland who were discontented in regard to higher education, and a University should be provided for them. There were four
    1190
    Universities in Scotland, where the population was similar in size to that of Ireland. He could not see any reason why there should not be three Universities in Ireland. Elementary education must be improved and the teachers must be elevated, so that the parents might be satisfied that they were entrusting the intellectual and moral training of their children to an educated class of men. The Catholics of Ireland would not send their sons to a Protestant university. That was out of the question. They were denominational to the backbone. The lines of demarcation were quite too marked for them to mix. He could see no reason why Catholic teachers should not get higher education, and be fitted to take in hand the teaching of the youth of the country. One or two bold measures such as that which would pass the Third Reading to-morrow would bring loyalty and contentment to the people of Ireland. It appeared to him absurd for hon. Members from Ireland to talk of mixed education at this time of day. Now that the land question had been settled, he hoped for ever, the question of education was the most important the Government had to deal with in Ireland
    MR. SLOANsaid the sanitary condition of the schools in Ireland had been fully gone into by hon. Members on both sides of the House. His own opinion was that the condition of things was such that a protest should be entered against it whenever opportunity arose. The hon. Member for East Cavan had made a speech that filled him with amazement, in so far as it related to the question of mixed education. The hon. Member said that the members of all denominations should be able to consolidate in getting a system of national education. While they were agreed in urging that the schools should be put in proper sanitary condition, he thought the hon. Member should also cultivate good feeling on the part of the people, so that they might mix together in the different colleges, and receive the education which would qualify them adequately for their career in life. Reference had been made to Marlborough Street

    1191
    College, where the dining room was also the study. This particular college had been ignored notwithstanding the undertakings given by the Government as far back as 1891. There was a specific pledge given that the thing would be remedied, and now in 1903 the old complaints still survived. The teachers in Ireland had many grievances. If there were fifty-nine children in a school the teacher could not get an assistant, but if there were sixty or sixty-one he could. Surely the fact that there were one or two pupils short of sixty was not a sufficient excuse for not giving the teacher an assistant. Was it reasonable to expect a teacher to give proper attention to the children in the First to the Sixth Standard, and to be responsible for an infant class also, unless he had assistance in the work? He trusted that the result of this debate would be that these matters would be carefully looked into.
    *MR. YOXALLsaid that while listening to the debate certain famous Parliamentary words came to his memory, and he felt disposed to paraphrase them by saying—"If I were an Irishman, as I am an Englishman, I would never, never, rest until the Irish system of education was thoroughly reformed." So far as he could make out there was no system of education in the British Isles that needed reform anything like so much as that of Ireland, and in deed outside of Spain, Turkey, and Russia there was no system of education in Europe that needed reform so much. It was a disgrace to the United Kingdom and to Parliament that this system should be allowed to go on. The schools in Ireland required more money, teachers, books, buildings, and fuel. It appeared to him that to blame the National Board, so long as the lack of money was the real cause, was to begin at the wrong end altogether. There must be more money spent on the Irish educational system. If money was provided to meet its requirements the results would be more satisfactory than at present. He supposed that then, placing the three kingdoms in the order of merit in the matter of education, Scotland would be first, England a very good second, and, he was afraid, Ireland would
    1192
    be for many years a very bad third. Now that there was a new hope with regard to the Irish land system it was more important than ever that something should be done for the Irish schools. In the Irish schools lay the hope of Ireland in the future. If the elementary schools were not efficient what was the use of spending money on continuation schools and secondary schools? The Reports of the Commissioners year by year and the communications he frequently received from the teachers in Ireland showed that the schools were sadly lacking in every respect. The schools were cold, badly ventilated, and comfortless. Mechanical arrangements for the supply of air to school buildings were entirely out of the question. The best ventilation for a school was a good draught from the window to the fire-place. Again and again on the bitterest winter day there was no fire in the schools. In the present case, owing to the lack of State aid, the duty fell upon the managers and teachers. The managers were too poor and the teachers were even poorer. The consequence was that the schools were unheated and unventilated; and altogether in a very unhappy state. Then as to the question of books. There was a time when the books published by the Irish Education Committee were a model for the whole country; but that time had passed away, and these books had been long outstripped in this country and in Scotland, both in quality and quantity. At present the teachers in Ireland had to work without a proper supply of books, stationery, pens, and all the requisites for good school work.
    Then as to the question of staffing. If there were sixty children in a small school one teacher must do all the work owing to the maintenance of the old system. The standards had not been abandoned and the teacher's work was still cut up into six or seven water-tight compartments with an infant class, and under these conditions the work could not be done efficiently. It would be superficial and was bound in the long run to fail. It had been suggested that there should be an assistant teacher in every school where there were fifty scholars; and he was told that that would cost no more than £9,000 a year. That was a reform, therefore, which would not demand a large sum of money, and he hoped that something would be done to secure it.

    1193
    It was said that the supply of students in the training colleges had fallen off 43 per cent. and it would fall still more until the teachers were made more comfortable and their position made more assured. The male teacher only got £56 a year and the female £44 to commence with, and additions to these small incomes were uncertain, while the maximum, which was attained by very few, was only £175 a year. Under these circumstances it was no wonder that the supply of teachers was falling off. The debate had shown that there was a great deal of responsibility on the Chief Secretary. The power was largely in his hands. Was he going to do for education what he had done in another Department, when, by his skilful management of a great Bill, he had brought about a feeling of friendship, not only between all classes of the Irish people, but a feeling of friendship in England towards Ireland. Let the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to education. They all knew how busy he must be just now in connection with imposing functions in Ireland; but nothing could be more imposing or of more real importance to Ireland than the education of her children. Let the right hon. Gentleman ascertain for himself the condition of education in Ireland and then come back to signalise his term of office by another patriotic and practical reform. The money was there in the equivalent grant, and the question related to the United Kingdom as well as to Ireland, for the Irish children came over to this country, which had therefore an interest in their education.
    MR. CLANCYsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not take too lightly the reference to the serious condition of the Irish national schools. In point of fact Dr. Starkie had himself made the strongest statement about them that he had ever heard when he said in his Report that—
    "He had prepared an official list of 1,000 schools which might be described as scarcely habitable."
    That showed that really something must be done to cure what was nothing less than a regular scandal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not say, as some of his predecessors had done, that the Irish people ought, by local rates or something of the kind, to supply these defects.
    1194
    The Irish people would do nothing of the kind as long as the control of the national system of education was not in their own hands. As soon as they got their national system put on the same footing it was in other countries, the Irish people would under take the necessary financial responsibility. A good deal had been said about the Board of Education. It was quite true that this Board was not constituted from an educational point of view. No doubt most of the members were educated men, but they were not selected for that reason, but to satisfy certain religious claims. Whatever might be the case in England, he was right in saying that both the Protestants—even the Presbyterians—and Catholics in Ireland, were in favour of denominational education, and would not have anything else. It was to satisfy this demand for a denominational system of education that this miserable device was adopted of having the National Board half Catholic and half Protestant.
    There were two faults to be found with that system. Firstly, it was a Board which acted in secret, and secondly, Dr. Starkie, in the address which had been alluded to, stated that every civilised country in Europe had a single central authority for national education, but in Ireland they had nothing in that direction; and if they could not profess anything else they were fertile in school authorities which exercised their independent functions with all the security of constant change. It was irritating to the Irish people in the highest degree to find that one of the most important of their domestic concerns, as a nation, was disposed of behind their backs in a back street in Dublin, by ten or twenty men appointed by a Government over whom they had not the least control. That was the cardinal defect of the national education system; and the result of it had in all times been the same. Archbishop Whately carried on a religious and political campaign against the Irish people by means of the Education Board, but he was beaten on the religious issue. Archbishop Whately, in his own words, tried to uproot the gigantic fabric of the Catholic Church in Ireland but failed, and the attempt had never been repeated, and if it were repeated, it would meet with the same

    1195
    result. But from the time of Archbishop Whately to the present hour the political campaign had never been abandoned, and it was now in full swing, so far as modern conditions allowed. They all knew what Archbishop Whately did to edit the reading school books of the Board. He was afraid of allowing to be instilled into the minds of the Irish children a single word about freedom, and struck out the word "freedom" from Campbell's poem containing the line, "And Freedom shrieked as Kosciusko fell." Why not have Irish history taught in Irish schools? Think of France, or Germany, or England allowing a system of education to be conducted in their schools without the history of their country being taught in them! But the children of Ireland, one of the most freedom-loving nations in the world, were absolutely denied any know edge whatever of the facts of Irish history. It was even worse now in the national schools than it used to be when he was a student at one of the Queen's Colleges. In his time they were allowed some glimpses of the history of Ireland down to the invasion of Henry II. It stopped at the year 1172; and what happened after that? What the relations were between England and Ireland from 1172 to the present day were a perfect blank and mystery to any student who received no other knowlege of Irish history besides that embodied in the text books used in the Queen's Colleges. It was worse in the case of the national schools, which did not teach either ancient or modern Irish history, and he was perfectly certain that no person who proposed to teach modern Irish history from the days of Cromwell to the present day and applied for a grant would receive it. That was quite right on the part of the authorities, who were put there to denominationalise the people. The Board was an institution composed of men who had no sympathy with the aspirations of the people, but were controlled by the Chief Secretary of the day. If the National Board attempted to conduct their system on principles that were really in consonance with the feelings and convictions of the people of Ireland, that moment steps would be taken by the Government in England, by its representatives in Dublin Castle, to stop them. He had no hope that the Board would be changed until they had Home Rule, but he
    1196
    hoped that during the coming recess the Chief Secretary would be able to devote some portion of his time to remove what was nothing more nor less than a scandal.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he did not remember a session since 1871 when this subject of Irish education had not been discussed. They had now arrived at a period when the question really ought to be taken in hand by the Government. This was practically a session when an Irish Parliament was sitting at Westminster. There were not more than half-a-dozen British Members who had taken the trouble to listen to the present debate, and that state of things would continue—at least until they went to a division. What was the question that ought to be faced in discussing national education in Ireland? The education in that country was controlled by a Board that was not responsible to Parliament in the same way as were other Boards, because over and over again the Chief Secretary had admitted that he had no power to make the Board do certain things. Why should that Board be allowed to exist outside the region of Parliamentary control? If they stopped the Vote they would stop education; and the real truth was that these sixteen or twenty gentlemen were absolutely masters of the situation, and, short of stopping their supplies, there was no control whatever over them. He was not inclined to deny that the National Board of Education had done good work in the past; but they were now hopelessly out of date, and the sooner their system was changed the sooner would education have a chance in the country. The Chief Secretary had got rid of a good deal of trouble by his dealings with the land question, and if he desired further conquests probably he would find the education question would be as tempting a field for conquest as the land question was when he first surveyed it. There were signs in Ireland, and especially in the North of Ireland, that the hard crust of the earth was breaking, and if the Chief Secretary liked to try his hand he might get a conference something like the land conference which would help him in arriving at a conclusion on this difficult question.

    1197
    There would be no zones on this question and there would be no matter of money.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: A torrid zone, certainly.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had no desire to enter into a question of denominational versus mixed education. All his life, in the abstract, he had been in favour of mixed education, higher and primary. He had always considered in the abstract that the children of the country should be educated together and should grow up children of that country. He had always, in the abstract, believed that such a state of things should prevail. But the abstract was not of much use for anything in Ireland. Whatever their opinion might be in the abstract they had to give way to the hard facts of the situation, and the hard fact of the educational situation in Ireland was that the overwhelming majority of the people in Ireland—Roman Catholic and Protestant—would not have mixed education. They were all in favour of it in the abstract but they would not have it in the concrete, and it would be found that in every Presbyterian congregation where it was possible there was a school under Presbyterian auspices; in every Episcopalian congregation would be found a school under Episcopalian auspices; and in every Methodist congregation there would be a school under Methodist auspices. He had always been in favour of mixed education, higher and lower, bit there was no use in kicking against the pricks or in forcing abstract ideas upon people who did not believe in them as realities. He was, however, perfectly convinced that they were close to the time when this whole educational system must be grappled with, both higher and primary; and it would be found, if the Chief Secretary did take it up, not so very difficult of solution after all, because there was a great deal to give people hope in Ireland at the present time. Old ideas were passing away and people were beginning to agree with each other, work with each other, and feel with each other, and he believed they were close at hand to the time when the education question could be solved, and solved
    1198
    satisfactorily to all classes of the country. He rather regretted the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, who was the first to drag the denominational question into the debate. It was not, so far as the training college was concerned, a question of denominaticnalism at all; it was a question of common decency, and it was on that ground that he put it before the House. He used the word "denominational" colleges no doubt because that was the only word to describe the situation. The facts were simply that the denominational colleges—two Catholic and one Protestant Episcopalian—had all satisfactory homes and satisfactory appliances, and the sum of £100,000 had been spent upon them. He did not object to that expenditure in the least, but there was another college actually in existence. They were not setting it up, it was a Government college acting with their own institutions; to that college went Presbyterians, Methodists, and a small minority of Catholics; and so long as the Government maintained that college they were bound to maintain it adequately and decently.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when he found this debate was coming on he thought that if he looked up the Report of the Royal Education Commissioners he would be able to see something of what was being done. He had spent an hour looking for it in the library and then discovered that it was only presented to the House on Friday last and was not yet printed. It was most desirable, when there was so much talk about education and this revised programme, that the Committee should know what was being done. Education was being very much spoken of, but he wanted to know what it was that was being done in these unhappy institutions known as the national schools, and what the unfortunate children went into this penal servitude to learn, and when they were voting £1,500,000 for education in Ireland they ought to be able to go to the librarian of the House and get at the curriculum that was being taught in the country, so that they might be able to know what these unfortunate little creatures were imbibing under this system. It was exceedingly strange that although this system was so departmentalised he was able to get no idea whatever from the records of the

    1199
    House of what was being taught, but it was a remarkable thing that he had been able to ascertain what the teachers had to learn, and, having arrived at that, he had been able to gather in some measure what the children were allowed to learn. He turned up the Papers (and let the Committee imagine a little Munster child being taught geography by his master). He had to pass an examination. There were ten questions—
    "(1) Draw a map of the six northern counties of England showing the mountain ranges and general drainage system of this part of the country. (2) On the outline map supplied to you indicate by shading or colouring the insular possessions of Great Britain and mark the position of Olga Bay, Ashantee, the Swan River, Port Elizabeth, Adelaide, Zanzibar, and Durban. (3) Name the principal mineral products of England, and the districts where they are found. (4) What tracts of country are included in the great European plain. Mention any barren regions to be found in Europe."
    Not in Connemara. That was not brought in to the European plain.
    "(5) Name the principal British ports and those on the other side of the water for our Atlantic and South African trade. How are those trade routes protected?"
    What a lot of Atlantic and South African trade there was from Bantry Bay and Connaught.
    "(6) Account for the great commercial and industrial activity along the Bristol Channel and the estuary of the Thames."
    They were not to account for the want of it along the Shannon, the Lea, the Boyne, and the Black water.
    "(7) Compare the highlands and lowlands of Scotland as to climate, natural features, and industrial resources. What forms the boundary between the two. (8) Give an account of Western Australia with reference to its climate and natural products, and to its development within the last few years. (10) Give a full account of the south-west monsoon, and of the causes producing it. In what way does it affect India?"
    That was what the teacher had to pass in geography. He looked further and he found ten questions which the teachers had to pass in the "History of Great Britain and Ireland," and this was what they were paying to have Irish children taught. One would have thought there would be something of the history of Ireland; there was one question. These were the questions which had to be answered—
    "(1) Describe the advance in power made
    1200
    by the English House of Commons under William III. (2) By what measures was the Irish wool trade destroyed? (3) Name the different candidates for the English crown at the death of Queen Anne, and describe the claims of each. (4) Describe the Annersley Case and the Act of Parliament to which it led."
    That was a good question.
    "(5) Give a full account of the Earl of Mar's Rebellion. (6) Write a short description of the plan of operations of the South Sea scheme and give its history. (7) Describe the state of the English Press at the beginning of the 18th century. (9) What were the principal resolutions adopted by the convention of delegates from the Ulster Volunteers which met at Dungannon in 1782. (10) Write a short biography of Chatham or of Clive."
    He would much prefer them to write a short biography of the right hon. Gentle man the Chief Secretary or Lord Edward Fitzgerald. That was what was called national education, and that was what they pumped into these unfortunate teachers, and they were expected to pump into the children. It would be more important to the Irish people if they were taught the cultivation of the potato. When there was all this talk about education and they were spending money for it he would like to see a practical scheme administered by practical people. How could they have a practical scheme under this.
    The right hon. Gentleman was invited to consider Irish education. He had looked up the number of Chief Secretaries in the last few years, and he found there were fourteen in the last twenty-five years—giving an average tenure of office of less than two years—each of whom only regarded his position as a spring-board to some Imperial promotion—he was not speaking of the last two or three incumbents of the office—and, so far from considering themselves bound in any way to look at the position from an Irish point of view, their one idea was to scurry out of the country at the earliest possible moment. They knew that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary was not only master of his duties, but was in thorough sympathy with the people he had to rule, but it was hopeless to suppose they could have any reform in the elementary education of Ireland until the members of the Board appointed for that purpose were selected for their knowledge of the subject. The eminent gentlemen who

    1201
    composed the present Board were too eminent for him; they knew too much. What interest did such men take in what children ought to know, what children in kindergarten or children of an older age ought to be set to. They were men who had become eminent in various walks of life, and who were the last men to know what was practical with regard to education. They were Edmund G. Dease, Esq., Sir Malcolm J. Inglis, Sir Percy R. Grace, J. Morell, Esq., Sir Henry Bellingham, K. H. Christopher Palles, Esq. Rev. Henry Evans, Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, His Honour Judge Shaw, Rev. Hamilton B. Wilson, Stanley Harrington, Esq., William R. J. Molloy, Esq., Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, Right Rev, Mervyn Archdale, William Joseph Miles Starkie, Esq., Right Hon. Justice Gibson, Anthony Traill, Esq., Right Hon. Lord Frederick Fitzgerald, and His Honour Judge Carton. A more impracticable Board for the purposes of elementary education could not be created. Was it to be expected that the Chief Secretary, whose duties were mainly concerned with carrying on the King's Government from a political point of view, and who was not selected for his knowlege of education or of the educational problem—was it to be expected that he, in his necessarily brief term of office, would attempt to reform this Board of fifty years growth, when he knew very well that any such attempt would simply land him in hot water? That was the chief indictment of English rule in Ireland. English Members were perfectly well intentioned, but they could not get at what the Irish people wanted in these respects. A foolish Minister started a system fifty or sixty years ago when times were altogether different, and that system, of its own vis inertice, continued simply because the English Government could not make up its mind what to put in its place.
    It was a most deplorable thing that so able a man as Dr. Starkie should have embroiled himself as he had done by his foolish speech, and set in opposition to himself the general body of the managers of the country who had charge in some form of the national schools. These managers, who did not trust the Board as a whole, and who were necessarily brought more into touch with its official,
    1202
    had been assailed by him as the propagators of ignorance and the abettors of darkness. How, under such circumstances, could they be expected ever again to have any sympathy with Dr. Starkie, or any trust in the Board? It was an extraordinary doctrine Dr. Starkie had laid down. These men were appointed managers largely on spiritual and religious grounds, to act as the spiritual custodians of the distric, to prevent any contamination of the pupils, and to see that there was none of that proselytism which Dr. Whately admitted this Board was founded to set on foot. It was absurd to expect them to go into questions of what might be called the lay curriculum, to brighten up the schoolmasters, or to insist on new methods. A priest, parson, or Presbyterian minister was not necessarily an educationist at all. His function was largely negative. He had not to see whether or not free-hand drawing was properly taught, or to examine in men suration or cube-root, or to see that the teaching of French or German was efficient. Those duties were no more cast upon him than upon the first doctor or barrister that could be met. Of course most of them, because of their position as managers, did take an interest in lay subjects, and were most anxious,—as their results depended upon it—that their pupils should be proficient; but to say that these men, perhaps in small, desolate, and poor parishes, with the humble resources at their command, were to be responsible for the education of the children, which the Government of Great Britain had taken out of their hands, and to attack them if that education was deficient, showed an utter misconception of the position of these managers, and proved that Dr. Starkie understood neither their position nor his own. He was afraid that Dr. Starkie—he regretted having to say it as he had hoped much from that gentleman's originality of thought—could not in the future be a success in his present position. He was a civil servant of distinction, and was entitled to some recognition from the Government, and there were great educational posts which he was well qualified to fill. But when Dr. Starkie selected Belfast as the venue, and the British Association as the audience, for giving an inaccurate and misleading account of

    1203
    parochial and national education in the country, it was idle to expect that anything he did in the future in the discharge of his functions would regain for him the confidence of the managers which it was essential that a man in his position should enjoy. He hoped that the Government, without in any way injuring Dr. Starkie's future, would be able to make some arrangement whereby he would be provided with a post in which he would be more calculated to enjoy the confidence of those whom he might have under him.
    With regard to the Marlborough Street Training College, he and others did not desire that it should be deprived of the ordinary amenities, the enjoyment of which should be the lot of everyone who was trained in such a place, but this was not a question which could stand by itself. There were four or five training colleges in the country not richly endowed or efficiently equipped. The Protestant and the Catholic Colleges in Dublin were, he believed, fairly well oft in that respect. Ten years ago the Prime Minister made the important declaration that the training colleges then in existence should be put on the same financial footing, whether Catholic or Protestant; but that pledge, though possibly it was not the fault of the Prime Minister, had not been fulfilled, and although training colleges had been established in Belfast, Limerick and Waterford, the provision made for them had fallen lamentably short of the necessities of the case. One of the best means of improving the position of the children in Ireland was to see that the teachers were properly trained, and he deplored that teachers, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Presbyterian, should be brought up in insanitary and unsuitable surroundings, and as might be said of the Marlborough Street College, in an almost pagan quarter. What was the remedy? A remedy would be to provide all classes with suitable training equipment. The central institutions for Protestants and Catholics in Dublin were fairly efficient, but Belfast, Limerick and Waterford were anxious to train their own teachers, and it was not too much to ask that those institutions should have some further assistance from the State. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to apply the development grant to this purpose, but some portion of the money might very well be used in that
    1204
    way. As to the remaining portion of the money, the teachers of Ireland had undoubtedly put forward an unselfish claim. They did not want any of it for the purpose of increasing their salaries, or enhancing their pensions, or improving their present position, but they did point out that the money if spent amongst them would be a very great boon. As far as he could make out, if distributed, it would not mean a £10 note per annum, and it was not desirable that it should be spent in dribs and drabs, as the best use would not then be made of it. He was very anxious that the money should be effectively spent, and the responsibility for it must largely be on the Minister of the day. He felt considerable personal sympathy with the demand that had been made, and it was only the knowledge that the Chief Secretary was about to leave the House which prevented him enlarging on the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said lit did not feel competent to deal with the hon. and learned Member's amusing analysis of the syllabus of the subjects taught to teachers in Ireland, although he thought Members would agree that the syllabus showed some advance on the days of their own pupilage. On the merits, he thought Irishmen might do worse than devote a great deal of attention to the ocean trade routes of the world, as they had a considerable interest in the subject. Irish, children of all denominations heard a great deal about William III., though what they heard was not always the same. He doubted, too, whether the hon. and learned Member was accurate in suggesting that the demise of the Crown on the death of Queen Anne was a matter which had no importance in Ireland. But passing from that point, he desired to take a bird's eye view of the debate as a whole. It was two years since they debated the Irish Education Votes, and those Votes, as was pointed out to-day, and also two years ago, gave an opportunity for the general discussion of the whole subject of education in Ireland, an opportunity which was a very valuable one. Hon. Members representing Irish constituencies had indulged in a great latitude of criticism and suggestion, and they were quite right. Such a debate as they had just had was most informing, and it would

    1205
    be madness on the part of any Government to attempt to touch the question of education in Ireland unless it had such guidance as could only be given by such a debate as that to which they had just listened. But the Minister of the day could not himself indulge in so great a latitude of criticism, and still less of suggestion. If he ventured to criticise the system, which might be considered antiquated, it might be thought he was criticising the gentlemen who gave their time and services to education in Ireland. That would be both unjust and ungenerous. Whatever quarrel they had with education in Ireland it must be recognised that men of distinction did there for nothing work which in every other country in the world was highly paid. Therefore, they ought not to look in an unfriendly spirit at the work done by those gentlemen who offered their services to their country, and got no reward of any sort or kind or description. He could not follow the example of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who hold out the expectation that the Government would forthwith set its hand to some reform of education in Ireland. It would not be proper for him to holdout that expectation, because his views on the subject were crude and immature. He know it was difficult, and no man would even hold out the faintest promise of any great reform upon this subject until he bad devoted at least six months or a year to the almost exclusive study of some of the difficulties involved. Those difficulties were very great, and the speeches they had heard that afternoon illustrated the magnitude of those difficulties.
    The hon. Member for East Mayo in particular sounded a very definite note in regard to this problem when he said that the denominational system was a necessity, and the great majority of hon. Members who had spoken agreed him. The hon. Member for South Tyrone stated quite clearly that although he preferred an undenominational system he despaired altogether of ever seeing an undenominational system in Ireland. He thought the denominational system was suited to Ireland, and it would be absurd for anyone to attempt to uproot that system which in the main he thought was a blessing to Ireland. The denominational system
    1206
    worked well in Ireland but not in other countries. An important section of the people preferred undenominational education and they must be allowed to hold that view, and they ought not to chop logic over words upon this question. If they were to assist Education in Ireland he thought it must be in the spirit which had prevailed that afternoon which distinctly declared that denominational it must be, but they were willing to show toleration towards each other. What filled him with most hope in the course of the debate that afternoon was that while great insistence was laid upon the necessity of preserving the denominational system, there seemed to be a general desire to assist all denominations alike in certain respects, for almost every speaker spoke in favour of improving the sanitation of schools, and, he thought he ought to add the improvement of training colleges. In 1891, the Marlborough Street Training College was the only training college which had any status at all, and the present Prime Minister levelled up three other training colleges to the level of the Marlborough Street Training College. It had been said that the Marlborough Street Training College had not such a good free-home as the three denominational colleges. He came to that conclusion, and he held that it was not proper that a training college cherished by a great section of opinion in Ireland should have a building in which it was not desirable that young men should be put. For his part he thought that the change in the site of the Marlborough Street Training College would be a proper charge to put upon the Irish development grant. He thought that much that had been said upon this point would justify him in expecting that it would not be considered a very controversial charge. They ought to look to sanitation, decency, and propriety in all public buildings erected in the cause of education.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What about the other three colleges?
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid that under the arrangement of 1891 the other three colleges received a great deal. The hon. Member opposite spoke of Limerick and

    1207
    Waterford. He thought something could be done with respect to those colleges, but he had not yet gone sufficiently into the question to be able to say what should be done. Looking at the problem generally an easy solution had been offered to them by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, and all they wanted to accomplish it was money. If they had unlimited money they could make the Irish system of education, even with its admitted defects, a very popular one. The trouble was that the system must be denominational, and consequently they had to have a large number of schools, more proportionately even than in England, where there was an undenominational system. Ireland in many districts was a very poor country, so poor, in fact, that they could not expect to get any substantial contribution from the rates, if indeed they could expect to get any contribution at all. Consequently the system became on this account an expensive one, and if they had to spend a good deal of money upon training colleges they could not spend money without limit upon the erection of schools and supplying them with all modern appliances. It was difficult for him to proceed along that path unless it had been carefully reconnoitred in advance. He did not wish to say a word which would justify any hon. Member of the Committee believing that he was blind to the present conditions of the schools in Ireland, or that he was opposed to Irish children having brighter surroundings during their school days, and more warmth, or that he wished that they should be exposed to insanitary surroundings. He would remind the Committee, however, that the question of finance had to be faced. He would give one illustration to show knew a case in which a woman was the mistress of a school attended by thirteen children, and consequently that school was entitled to a capitation grant; but out of the thirteen of those children, nine were her own. [An HON. MEMBER: You ought to give her an extra grant.] In the days of ancient Rome she would have received a reward from the State, not on educational, but on
    1208
    other grounds; but he did not think it would be fair to introduce the jus trium liberorum, especially if the payment would have to be made thrice. The preservation of the denominational system in Ireland brought up the expense because of the increased number of schools required, and therefore they could not have so much money to spend upon other aspects of the educational question. He agreed that the question of the proper heating of the schools and sanitation was one that ought certainly to be considered. He was glad to hear from several hon. Members that they did not entertain the hope of putting in the most expensive modern heating appliances. Certainly Ireland was not rich enough for that. It was much better that she should have the denominational education she desired than that she should have the latest electrical appliances, which might be needed in Liverpool for ventilation, but which were not required on the mountain side where there was a good deal of natural ventilation. It was the same in regard to playgrounds. In a town or large village a playground was a very proper provision, and most desirable. For his part, when he was a boy he would much sooner have gone out on to the bog to amuse himself than do as the children did in an English school, that was, play in a sanded yard with railings round, which reminded one forcibly of the Zoological Gardens. Where these was not the open countryside an effort should be made to secure a playground, provided they had some regard to economy, not so much for the sake of the general taxpayer, but for the sake of Ireland. Ireland could not afford the gilt-edged education which London and Liverpool thought they could afford, and pay for very largely out of the rates.
    He had endeavoured to deal with this question in a general way. The hon. Member for West Kerry took them seriatim through certain questions. His own views in regard to the teachers of Ireland were well known, and they remained what they were before. The particular question of the night schools conducted by Colonel Moore had been brought up, but the grant had been

    1209
    made, and why should they reopen the controversy. The hon. Member dealt chiefly with building grants, playgrounds, and sanitation. He was quite clear that a portion of the Irish grant ought to go towards levelling up these schools, but it should be upon an Irish scale, and not upon the scale of great industrial cities. As the hon. Member had stated, if they were to accede to all the requests made they might spend another £500,000 a year on education, and he thought that justified him in advocating a certain amount of caution. The next specific point urged upon the Committee was the propriety of reducing the average attendance which justified the appointment of two teachers to fifty. He would give that his earnest and favourable attention. He thought it was a proper reform and one of manageable dimensions. The hon. Member for South Kerry, who also took a great interest in education, was the first of several speakers who criticised the address made by Dr. Starkie. Dr. Starkie was an educationist who was deeply keen on the subject of education, and on that occasion and others he had expressed his conviction with a good deal of vehemence. He knew as a fact that Dr. Starkie was not criticising, as the hon. Member for East Mayo thought, the priests or Catholic managers, but all managers indiscriminately. In so far as Dr. Starkie went in that direction he held that the management of many of these schools left much to be desired. He knew that Dr. Starkie did not intend that to be a charge specifically levelled against Catholics.
    MR. DILLONsaid in that case Dr. Starkie's language was most unfortunate, for he conveyed quite another impression to his audience and to others who read his address in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was unfortunate in his language, as many hon. Members in this House often were when they used language which did not express what they meant. The real point was what did the man mean? He did not mean it to be a charge directed specifically against schools under Catholic management. Dr. Starkie had rendered yeoman service to the course of education
    1210
    in Ireland, and he did not know what they should do without him. The rest of the debate had been directed against the National Commissioners. It was true that they were appointed to see, if he might put it so, fair play between the various denominations in Ireland, but they did a good deal of other work. In the absence of Dr. Starkie that Board would feel that it could not continue the arduous work imposed on it. The Committee were aware that he himself, in common with others who had studied the question, saw the great disabilities involved under the present system and would desire to see changes carried out if they could be carried out without striking at denominational education, on which Ireland set such store.
    MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had anything to say about the model schools.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid the model schools were somewhat in the same position as the Marlborough Street Training College. They represented a certain section of teachers whom it was strongly desirous to maintain, for if the considerable hinds which were now at the disposal of the Government were devoted, as in the main they would be, to the assistance of education in Ireland in consonance with the wishes of the majority in Ireland, he was clear that it would not be proper at the present time to strike a blow at certain institutions on which a certain section in Ireland set great store.
    MR. DILLONasked what was the result of the inquiry he had spoken of.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was not aware whether that inquiry had been carried out, but at the present moment an inquiry was being carried on which would embrace the model schools and all other parts of Irish education, in order that such changes as they should undoubtedly have, to make, might be economical changes and might not involve public money when there was not public money to carry out all that they should wish to see carried out in connection with Irish education. Further than that he did not think he could go at present.
    MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee what the nature of the inquiry was to be. Was it to be a private inquiry?
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was a private inquiry. He did not wish hon. Members to think that he thought it possible to carry out a great revolutionary change in Irish education, but recognising, as he did recognise, that in respect of accommodation and other even more important respects Irish education hit a great deal to be desired, the first step, in his opinion, was to measure the size of the problem, and to measure the amount of money required. For that purpose an independent inquiry was being conducted into Irish education, and when he had the results of that inquiry, as he hoped to have in the course of a month or two, he would be in a better position to consider what changes could be introduced into the system believing that some changes could be introduced and that delay was undesirable.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the right hon. Gentleman made some allusion to training colleges, and among others to the training college at Waterford. He asked whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly as saying that some portion of the grant was due to assist the Waterford Training College, which was built by the De Sales Society and which had received little or no assistance.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid his recollection of the request put before him by the hon. and learned Gentleman was that it was not for a grant, but to raise the number of pupils. He did consider that the raising of the number of pupils was one of the objects contemplated.
    MR. FLYNNsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of some sort of inquiry into the working of the model schools. He wished to point out that the amount spent on these schools was largely disproportionate to the results obtained. The natural consequence was that if so large an amount was spent on one section of primary education in Ireland, the rest, of course,
    1212
    must to some extent be starved. In the model schools the cost per head was considerably more than double what it was in the first class and efficient national schools, and therefore he trusted the inquiry would be pushed forward with energy. He hoped it would not be one of that class of inquiries about which nobody could get any definite information whatever. In the model schools the average cost per head was £4 17s., while in the ordinary national schools it was £2 6s. This seemed to indicate that there was a wasteful expenditure in giving education to the children of parents who could very well afford to pay for education out of their own pockets. The Attorney-General had admitted that the cost per head in the Cork model school was £7. That was a monstrous waste of money. The school was built to accommodate 1,226 pupils, and last year there were only 260 in average daily attendance. The expenditure was £1,819. Of the 260 in average attendance thirty-two were infants or children in the lower standards. He had intended bringing before the Committee what he believed to be the unwise and injudicious treatment meted out to the Cork Technical Instruction Committee, but as the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would endeavour to find a modus vivendi he would not make any observations on the subject.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDexpressed satisfaction at the fact that the Chief Secretary had acknowledged the necessity for improving the condition of the schoolhouses in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they could not expect in Ireland what he called gilt-edged education. Of course they did not, but the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that there was a long way indeed between gilt-edged education, whatever that might be, and proper conditions in many of the schools in the country-districts of Ireland. There was the greatest need for many of the school-houses being put in a proper state of repair and made comfortable both for the children and the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman did not

    1213
    deal with the complaints made against the National Board, but there seemed to run through his speech an admission of the necessity for overhauling the system of national education in Ireland generally. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a question of money. There was, at any rate, a large sum of money available now, and it would be most disappointing and unsatisfactory if a large portion were not devoted to the purpose of improving the national schools and doing what was necessary for the welfare of the children throughout the country.
    MR. GILHOOLYsaid that down to 1900 the classification of teachers in Ireland had been accomplished by study, examination, and successful professional work, but in that year, by a despotic order of the Board of Education, or of the Treasury, the classification was stopped and what was called a system of grading was substituted. By that alteration first class teachers had been degraded to third class teachers, and they had been deprived both of their status and their emoluments. If education was to be a success in Ireland, the teachers must not be discredited in their work. When the alteration was made, he believed it was promised that no teacher would be deprived of his emoluments, and he thought inquiry should be made into this matter by the Chief Secretary, who should also consider whether some improvement should not made in the salaries of instructors in needlework and in kindergarten work. These were supposed to give all their time to their work, and their salary was only £24 a year.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    2. £530, to complete the sum for Endowed Schools Commissioners, Ireland.
    3. £707, to complete the sum for National Gallery of Ireland.
    4. £2,300, to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
    Resolutions to be reported.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum not exceeding £106,499, 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 Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the Services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants in Aid."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to ask the right hon. the Attorney-General whether he was in a position to give the Committee anything like a detailed account of the experiments in the growing of tobacco in Ireland undertaken by the Agricultural Department during the last three years. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman this Question because the Minister representing the new Agricultural Department was not in the House. Apart from his personality, he thought that it was very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman was not there to answer directly for his Department when matters affecting it were brought before the House. They were in this position, therefore, that while they had recently established this most useful, and in many respects effective Department, there was no representative of it in the House. This matter of tobacco growing in Ireland was exciting a considerable amount of interest. It was not generally known that long ago tobacco planting was an exceedingly remunerative industry, giving employment to large numbers of people in different portions of the country. Like the woollen industry, the tobacco industry had been destroyed in Ireland, not because it was a failure in anyway, or unremunerative, but solely because it was thought desirable that nothing should be done to compete with the English Colonists in America, who ha I tobacco plantations there. Those who looked into the history of the question would rind that a petition was presented to Charles II. asking him in so many words to have an Act carried in this House to suppress the tobacco industry in Ireland, simply because it was competing, and likely to

    1215
    compete still more, with the English farmers who had emigrated to Virginia and Carolina, and engaged in tobacco planting. When they heard about the cultivation of new industries in the British Empire, he thought something should be done to revive what was once a very large industry in Ireland. Four years ago he had the opportunity of calling the attention of the right hon. Baronet, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman told him that if the experiments of the Department of Agriculture were successful he would do everything in his power to encourage an industry which would be of great advantage to Ireland, and of some advantage to the people of this country. He believed that these experiments in various parts of Ireland where the tobacco had been grown had been fairly satisfactory, but he had been in hopes that some member of the Government would give the Committee details of the progress made. This year the present Chancellor of the Exchequer met a deputation of Irish Members in the most friendly manner, and said that he took a deep interest in the project of tobacco growing in Ireland, and that if the experiments were successful he would give every assistance in his power to assist in the revival of the industry. If the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, or somebody competent to represent him, had been in the House he believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been called upon to make good his word. All that he asked now was that the Attorney-General for Ireland would be good enough to direct attention to his remarks, and have some report made on the matter.
    They heard a good deal of late, no doubt with truth, that there was a great desire amongst the English people to help in promoting the prosperity of Ireland without any injury to themselves. This was a subject which deeply affected the prosperity of Ireland, because if it could be shown that tobacco culture could be successfully engaged in, a very great industry would grow up in that country. Outside agriculture there was really no employment in the rural
    1216
    districts for young men and women, and here was an industry perfectly adapter to an agricultural population, in which large numbers of young men and women might be employed with great advantage to themselves and the country. The cultivation of tobacco in Ireland was distinctly provided for in the Act of Union; and any Member who looked up the Articles of the Act would find that in Article 6 regulations were laid down for the exportation of tobacco from Ire land to this country, and also as to the conditions under which tobacco might be grown in Ireland. A law was, however passed in 1831 prohibiting the growing of tobacco in Ireland That was really a breach of the Act of Union. He and his friends were sometimes denounces because they demanded the repeal of the Act of Union; but with reference to tobacco this House repealed that Act when it passed the Act of 1831. That only made the Irish case harder, because it showed that when it suited England England did not regard the Act of Union as sacred. It might appear a trivial matter; but it was a matter in which great and growing interest was taken in Ireland Some of the best tobacco manufacturers in the world, some of the most independent, and some who had made the best fight against trusts and monopolies of the trade, were in Ireland; and several of them expressed the greatest desire to do everything in their power to give this industry fair play. What he asked the Government to do was to repeal the Act which prohibited the growing of tobacco in Ireland. When they heard of nothing but preferential tariffs, when that question was convulsing the Cabinet itself, they simply asked that sufficient encouragement should be given to the people of Ireland to establish this industry once more, and he had no doubt that if they got a fair chance they would be able to show that tobacco-growing as an industry in Ireland would be able to hold its own. But unless they received encouragement from the Government it would be impossible for them to effect anything. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took some interest in the matter, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would acquaint himself with the opinion of the Minister in charge of the Agricultural Department in Ireland. He had already

    1217
    been able to place the matter very slightly before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave him some encouragement. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position to make any statement on the matter now; but if he did not, it was not because the right hon. Gentleman's interest was lost, but because he was not yet satisfied upon all matters on which he had asked for information. It was really a practical question which might mean a great deal to a large number of people in Ireland. A Report of a Committee of this House, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Parnell, a relative of the great Irish Leader, would fortify every statement he had made on the subject. There was a real desire on the part of the Irish farmers to re-establish what was once a thriving industry in their country. He was obliged to the Committee for the attention they had given him, and he hoped that when hon. Gentlemen heard of Irish tobacco they would not turn away from it.
    *SIR FREDERICK WILLSsaid he was not, of course, the Member for the tobacco trade in the House, because the trade was not qualified to elect a Member; but, as the only Member present who was connected with the trade, he wished to say that, as far as he knew, there could be no feeling whatever on the part of tobacco manufacturers against tobacco being grown in Ireland. All he could say was, that if tobacco could be grown in Ireland, and well grown, tobacco manufacturers would hail it with delight. Why not? It was a matter of supreme indifference to the manufacturers where the tobacco came from as long as it was of good quality. As far as the revenue was concerned, that was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt his right hon. friend would be able to guard the revenue. But so far as tobacco manufacturers were concerned, there would be no pre judice whatever against tobacco grown in Ireland. Of course, those who knew anything about the business were aware that in tobacco growing very much
    1218
    depended on the soil and climate, and if the Irish agriculturists were able to produce an article that was acceptable to the public, he, for one, did not see why they should not be allowed to do so. He was a sympathiser and a friend of Ireland, indeed, he supposed that every hon. Member was a friend of Ireland, although they might have different ways of expressing their friendship.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,)said that, in accordance with the promise he made to the hon. Member for Clare, he had communicated with the Department of Agriculture in Dublin with the view of receiving from them a report as to the success or non-success of experiments in tobacco culture in Ireland. He had not yet received a reply; but, of course, they should all be glad to encourage in Ireland the growth of tobacco, if it were possible to do so; but it would be useless to attempt to bolster up an industry if the soil and climate were not adapted for it. That would not be a kindness to any country. But if he was satisfied from the report he received that experiments on a larger scale were, in the opinion of the Department, desirable, he should endeavour to make some arrangements by which such experiments might be carried out.
    MR. FIELDsaid he entirely agreed with the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for East Clare with respect to tobacco growing; but a great many other matters also required attention. A large portion of the Irish population depended upon agriculture, yet a comparatively small sum was devoted to the purposes of the Department for Agriculture.
    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.

EVEVING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [18TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS III
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,600, 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 criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland."
    MR. J. P. FAREELLsaid he put down a Motion to reduce this Vote by £500, for the purpose of calling attention to the inconceivably mean conduct of the Government in respect to the conduct of a prosecution against himself in October last. He regretted the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because he was certain, from what he knew of his demeanour, as compared with that of the Attorney-General for Ireland, that he would have received more favourable consideration at the hands of the Chief Secretary than he would at the hands of the Attorney General. It was now nearly twelve months since the Irish Government imposed coercion on Ireland. The proclamations issued in the first instance only embraced a few counties, but in the month of September further proclamations were issued which embraced a considerable part of Ireland, including the county and borough of Longford. At this time there was no crime of any description in Longford.
    Within one week of the proclamation imposing coercion in that district, he, the representative of Longford in this House, was duly summoned on five counts to take his trial before two removable magistrates. The trial took place, and Dr. Faulkner, the legal gentleman prosecuting, stated that he appeared by the direction of the Attorney-General to prosecute for intimidation and incitement to intimidate certain persons. During the progress of
    1220
    the trial, which created a vast amount of interest, the spectators who came to see were treated with great rudeness, some of the most respectable people an largest ratepayers of Longford being hustled out of Court. As a matter of course, the magistrates convicted him, and sentenced him to five terms of five months' imprisonment, of which thru months in each term were with hard labour and two months without. Ha not the word concurrent, or whatever the legal term was, been put into the sentence, he would have had to have served two years and one month. As in was, the sentence only amounted to fifteen months altogether. The usual appeal was entered, and came on for trial before Judge Curran in the following October. The cardinal point he desired to make against the Attorney General was this. In the course of than appeal considerable stress was laid upon the fact that, independent of his representing Longford in this House, he held responsible positions in Longford itself being a member of the County Council and a member of the Board of Pool Law Guardians. He, personally, did not care except for the principle involved. It was pointed out to Judge Curran that if the term of hard labour was enforced, under the Local Government Act he would become disqualified from holding these offices and Dr. Faulkner got up and stated than he was instructed to press for the severest penalties, and that if hard labour was not imposed a great portion of the effect that the trial was intended to have would be lost. He considered that that was hitting below the belt in a most un-Irish way. For a great Imperial Government like this with its great majority in this Chamber, to descend to the meanness of instructing its Castle hack to press a Judge to impose this penalty on a man entitled to a seat in this House, was an Act for which the hon. Gentleman and his collegues should justly hang their heads with shame. To take advantage of a mere technicality in an Act of Parliament to inflict vindictive vengeance—for there was no other word for it—on a political opponent, merely because he discharged his duty towards the conntry which gave him birth, and which he was anxious to see placed upon a plane of equality and prosperity with that of

    1221
    other nations, was unworthy of any Government that ever sat in this House.
    He did not ask the Attorney-General to undo the act which had been done in his name and at his request, but he asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House whether it was fair that, when the criminal law was put into operation against any Member of this House, its operation should extend, not merely to his punishment for the offence of which he might have been guilty, but that it should operate afterwards in such a way as to deprive him for ever of sitting either on a Board of Guardians or a County Council, while at the same time he was entitled to come and vote in this House, where his vote counted as much as that of the Prime Minister or the Colonial Secretary. The position was untenable, and it was a travesty of government to say that they should be able to treat their political opponents in that fashion. The result of the appeal was that the sentence of five months with hard labour was reduced to three months with hard labour. All the same—the hard labour having been retained—he was disqualified from acting as a County Councillor and Poor Law Guardian, but—the absurdity of it—he was not disqualified from acting and voting as a Member of the Imperial Parliament. Altogether twelve Members of Parliament were prosecuted and sentenced, but only in this case were instructions given by the Crown to have the hard labour retained. He asked the Attorney-General for Ireland to explain why it was that this disgraceful action was taken against him in order to drive him from representative positions in Longford. As a protest he moved to reduce the salary of the right hon. Gentleman by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £500, in respect of the Salary of the Attorney-General for Ireland."—(Mr. J. P. Farrell.)
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid in rising to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford he did not approach this matter as a personal grievance. He supported the Motion because, in his judgment, the act of the hon. and learned Gentleman
    1222
    was one which vitally affected the local government of Ireland. Eulogistic tributes were passed from time to time on the various local Councils of Ireland; the administrators of those Councils in the West were his colleagues in this House, leaders of the United Irish League in Connaught, Waterford and Mayo. It was simply because these men, as public representatives, chose to raise their voices in favour of Irish land for the Irish people, a principle which had since been incorporated in the measure of the Chief Secretary, that they had been compelled to suffer, not only imprisonment, but to mix with common fellows, eat prison food, and undergo prison fatigue. No member of the Irish Party demanded special treatment for himself, and his colleague who had suffered under the Coercion Act had been content to suffer, but there could be nothing more despicable on the part of the Government than to try and rob the people of the poorer districts of Ireland of the services of those who had proved themselves such splendid administrators of the County Council Act by imposing hard labour upon them. He did not know the intention of the House in putting this clause into the Local Government Act. He was not in the House when it was passed, but of this he was certain, that the House never intended it should be used as a weapon by the Government against their political opponents. The clause was intended to cover ordinary offences against the law of the land, but as a matter of fact Members of Parliament, County Councillors, District and Urban Councillors, were being prosecuted under it and prevented thereby from serving on those bodies on which, by the application of their ability and capacity, they might be able to build up the fortunes of the little communities in which they lived. It was a mean and dastardly policy, and he awaited with some interest the justification by the Attorney-General of the attitude taken up by the law officers on his instructions. Was it not a most peculiar position of affairs that a man who was a Member of the Imperial Senate was denied the right of sitting on the Longford County Council? Would the right hon. Gentleman be decent enough to endeavour to do something

    1223
    to change that anomalous and disgraceful condition of affairs? The Coercion Act had been withdrawn; the Government had taken the United Irish League to its bosom, and yet many members of the Party had been sent to gaol for preaching the doctrines of land reform, which constituted the very essence of the Bill which the Chief Secretary had been passing through that Mouse. If the peace of which so much had been heard was to be permanent some means must be fund to remove this disqualifications from his hon. friend.
    There was one other point he desired to discuss. He wished to know why the police in Belfast had instituted a system of espionage and petty prosecution against members of the local branch of the league. The Nationalist Members of Parliament, who represented the United Irish League in that House, were largely responsible for keeping the present Government in power. Gratitude was defined sometimes as a lively sense of favours to come; he preferred to treat it as a recognition of past benefits, and, seeing that the United Iris League was responsible for having League kept the Government in power, was it not rather too bad that the humble, members of that body in the great city of Belfast should be prevented by the police from exercising their right to keep up a political movement in Ireland that enabled the Government to retain office. He protested against the action of the police in going round to the houses of these men and entering their names in note books for the sole purpose of intimidating them. He protested also against the issue by the police of summonses against the members of a band because they threatened to bring a certain matter before Parliament. He did not say that the Chief Secretary or Attorney-General was responsible for that.
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Member can show that the Attorney-General is responsible he will be out of order in discussing the matter.
    MR. DILLON: I maintain on the point of order that the Attorney-General is responsible for all prosecutions under the present system of Irish law.
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he interrupted because the hon. Member himself said he could not attribute this action to the Attorney-General.
    MR. DILLON: Still the right hon. Gentleman is responsible.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Government are not responsible for these prosecutions.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Who is then?
    MR. ATKINSON: The police. I am not.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid that surely the Minister responsible for the conduct of all prosecutions in Ireland was the Attorney-General. He was at any rate responsible to the House and must settle the matter with the local authorities. He ought not to allow the police authorities to carry on such a highhanded policy. Let the Chief Secretary open his eyes to what was going on in Ireland, and see that humble working men were not persecuted in a most contemptible fashion by the police, as they were now terrorised in the city of Belfast.
    *MR. P. J. O'BRIENdesired to know on what ground three men in his constituency had been returned for trial at Cork Assizes instead of being sent for trial in the usual course at Nenagh. Could the right hon. Gentleman say why a fairer trial could be held at Cork than at Nenagh. He understood the case had been disposed of that day by the men being allowed to return to their homes on their own recognisances, but why had they been put to the expense and inconvenience of going to Cork. The Chief Secretary had given them to understand in answer to Questions that if necessary the Irish Government would exercise the powers vested in them in in order to secure a fair and impartial trial, meaning to pack the jury for their conviction. Under these circumstances he (Mr. O'Brien) had given notice of his intention to move the reduction of the right hon. the Attorney-General's salary by £500 in order to open up this whole case, but now that the Government had very properly reconsidered their position and

    1225
    allowed these men their liberty he would merely content himself by again requesting to know on what grounds it was considered a fair trial could not be had at Nenagh.
    *MR. DELANYasked who was responsible for the custom of making the bogus police returns or, which the Judges of Assize founded their political addresses. Such speeches were not allowed to be made by English Judges in charging Grand Juries, and why should it be permitted in Ireland? There was more crime in England than in Ireland, and why should the administration of the law in Ireland be thus degraded. Under that Vote they were being called upon to pay the expenses of the coercion régime in Ireland; they had in fact to pay the piper for the insults and indignities heaped upon hon. Members. There was the case of the hon. Member for South Kildare, who was found guilty by a packed jury. He maintained that a special course had been pursued with regard to him simply because he was a political opponent, and that the Crown Solicitor, who had since resigned his position in disgust, was compelled by his instructors to select a jury from a list of forty-six marked names on a panel of 220 jurors. At that same Assize two prisoners were tried for murder under the ordinary law by ordinary jurors, and convictions obtained in both cases. Why was a different policy pursued in regard to the hon. Member for South Kildare? The people of Ireland complained more of the corrupt and partisan administration of justice than of the law itself. He had no sympathy with packed juries. It happened on one occasion that he was on a packed jury himself, but he saved the situation. He was half sworn before the Crown Solicitor realised the fact, and then it was too late to challenge him. The right hon. and learned Member for North Tyrone was in the case—for the defence—while the present Solicitor-General prosecuted. It was the first time he served on a jury, and he was never in such a warm corner before or since. There were signs on this side and signs on that side of him, and soon his fellow-jurors spotted that he was not in the know—they saw he was the wrong man. But he saved the situation. How could they expect the people to respect the law when it was thus administered?
    1226
    Such conduct simply brought it into contempt. The result of the treatment meted out to the hon. Member for South Kildare was that the people sent him to Parliament. Had the Attorney-General dared oppose his return he would soon have got his answer from the electors of South Kildare.
    MR. DILLONsaid that when the Local Government Act was under consideration he saw the danger of the particular clause to which reference had been made, and he moved an Amendment to eliminate this disqualification from the Order in Council, which, he then declared, if it were allowed to remain would probably be used by the Government for the purpose of disqualifying and punishing their political opponents. The idea was laughed to scorn, and the suggestion that the Government could be guilty of such base and contemptible motives was declared to be an outrage on the House of Commons. His words, however, had been absolutely verified. Hard labour had been imposed for the specific purpose of disqualifying local leaders from serving on the councils, and he contended that no Government, even in Ireland, had ever been guilty of meaner or more contemptible conduct. To show the futility of such a policy, he instanced the case of a member of a local council who was sentenced to hard labour, and in addition had to listen to an atrocious tirade from the County Court Judge. What was the result? That man was about to be elected to a lucrative post under the council, which he could not have held had he been a member of the body. He hoped the Attorney-General would announce the intention of the Government to abandon this policy. If it were necessary to pass a one-clause Bill for the purpose, he thought nobody would object to it going through after midnight.
    It had been announced in the newspapers in London, and generally believed, that in connection with the visit of His Majesty to Ireland, the Coercion Act had been completely suspended. That was not the case. The most odious provisions of the Act were still in force in many districts. Clauses 3 and 4 were still yet in operation, and it was ridiculous to talk about the Act being suspended

    1227
    while that was the case. He could not understand why the Government always seemed to do things by halves. During the last few months they had done much to promote good feeling in Ireland, and to remove many things against which the agitation of the United Irish League had been directed. But why did they not do the thing handsomely? If they desired to inaugurate an era of good feeling and peace in Ireland they must show the people that they meant to trust them; it could never be done by retaining, over a large portion of the country, the most objectionable clauses of the Crimes Act. A case in point was that referred to by the hon. Member for North Tipperary. Anything more preposterous than the action of the Government in that case could not be imagined. The charge was that of resisting the police—one of which no Tipperary man was much ashamed. The men were returning home peaceably after a meeting, when they found the road by which they had come barred by the police. They were asked to give an undertaking not to play bands while passing a certain house. They gave the undertaking, but the police continued to bar the road, and a little hustling took place. Thereupon the police drew their batons, and began smashing into the men. The Tipperary men, not understanding that method of argument, had recourse to their blackthorns, and an encounter ensued, in which the blackthorns got the better of the batons. The police were distinctly the aggressors. However, it was not necessary to pursue the subject further, as he understood the Government had practically dropped the charge. It ought to be realised by the Government that as long as Clauses 3 and 4 of the Crimes Act remained in force, and as long as County and District Councillors were subject to the disqualification to which reference had been made, the reign of peace which the Government were supposed to be anxious to promote would never be established.
    MR. CULLINANsaid the inclusion of the penal clauses in the Local Government Act for Ireland had been justified on the ground that it was also in the English Act, but there was really no analogy between the two
    1228
    cases. The law was never applied in England as in Ireland, and the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo conclusively proved that this power was never intended to be used in the manner which had been described. Many instances, similar to that of the hon. Member for Longford, could be given. One was that of a colleague of his on the County Council in South Tipperary. This man, one of the most respected, intelligent, and useful members of the council, was prosecuted, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. He appealed, and the County Court Judge being ill a K.C. was sent down as a substitute to hear the appeal. An application was made that the hard labour should be remitted from the sentence, but the K.C. absolutely refused, the impression left on the mind of everybody being that he was qualifying for a judgeship later on. But the man was released before the term had expired. Surely if the Government remitted that portion of the sentence, they ought also to consider the further punishment inflicted by this disqualification.
    Another case was that of Mr. Flannagan, who was sentenced to hard labour, and thus came under this disqualification. He was re-elected to the chairmanship of the District Council, but the Local Government Board wrote declaring that they could not, under any condition, allow him to act as chairman. It was really time for this penal clause to be removed from the Act. In one case the solicitor defending the defendants asked the resident magistrates not to disqualify the men from serving on the council by sentencing them to hard labour, and the magistrates actually declared that they were not aware that hard labour carried with it that disqualification. It was all very well to say that resident magistrates administered the law without bias or influence. It was an extraordinary fact that when the Act of 1887 was passed, a month's imprisonment was given in every case, but immediately after the Prime Minister at Manchester had scoffed at the idea of such short sentences they were increased to three months, and when Lord Salisbury shortly afterward condemned the

    1229
    magistrates forgiving inadequate punishment, the term was immediately lengthened to six months. It was a disgrace that any Government could be guilty of such base and cowardly conduct.
    MR. O'DOWDsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford, who, he thought, had been treated in a scandalous manner and one which reflected little credit on the administration of the law. He was not speaking of an individual, but of a county, which had been penalised. He referred to the county of Sligo. What was the position of affairs there at present? The Lord Chief Baron upon a recent occasion congratulated the Grand Jury and the people of the county of Sligo upon the peaceful state of the county. He said—
    "Not alone have I the privilege of congratulating you now, but on every occasion I come here on circuit I have the same story to tell."
    Notwithstanding this statement the Government had claimed from the county of Sligo through the County Council £1,508 13s. for extra police used during the coercion règime of the last sixteen months. He did not deny that the county of Sligo was one of the foremost counties in pressing forward the agitation which had made the present Land Bill possible, and Sligo was the first county which sent hostages to prison. But while maintaining that fight in a fearless fashion the county of Sligo had always advanced their case by constitutional methods, notwithstanding the fact that the law officers might state that they had stepped across the line. It was absolutely scandalous and ridiculous to penalise a whole county to the tune of £1,500 or £1,600 for police, which would mean a rate of 10½d. in the £. If that penalty was not either withdrawn or the money allocated from some other fund, the boon of the Land Bill would not be well received by the people of Sigo. How had this police tax come about? Two or three gentlemen who held estates in several counties in Ireland took it into their heads to take and grab accommodation grazing farms situated in the centre of congested districts, in order to add to their incomes, thereby depriving the unfortunate people of the
    1230
    chances they had of allowing their cattle to graze on those lands for six months. For the sake of buttressing up this system of land jobbery of two individuals who held between 1,600 and 1,700 acres of land in grazing farms, this police tax had been incurred. For the sake of these two obnoxious individuals the poor people of the county of Sligo were to be mulcted to the extent of £1,500. It was absolutely scandalous. Many districts of the county of Sligo had not a single extra policeman during the coercion règime, and although they had nothing to do with the agitation, they would be mulcted to the tune of a 10½d. rate. As the Chairman of the Sligo County Council he would inform the Committee that the County Council would refuse to act as bailiffs of the Government for the collection of this tax, and they would probably have to subtract it from the local taxation grant.
    MR. O'KELLY: said he was quite in accord with the sentiments of his hon. friend who had just spoken. The object of this imposition was to penalise counties for taking part in a political propaganda in which the leaders were put in prison in order that the county might be deprived of the services of those men. It was perfectly plain that Dublin Castle could penalise representative men by giving removable magistrates instructions as to the decisions the Government desired to be given. He might say that he had spent some of the happiest months of his life in prison, and there were few places so inviting to him as one of His Majesty's prisons in Ireland In these prosecutions the resident magistrates took their cue from Dublin Castle, which was given to them by the Crown Prosecutor He thought it was intolerable that the power of inflicting hard labour on men should be given to magistrates who were dependent for their existence upon the favour of Dublin Castle. If those magistrates refused to carry out the dictates of Dublin Castle they had to go, and so they played the game, and were willing to act upon any instructions which were given to them. In regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for South Sligo, it was

    1231
    perfectly monstrous that the county of Sligo, which was one of the most peaceful places in Ireland, should be mulcted in this large tax. He would like to know what number of police the people of Sligo were entitled to in ordinary times. These police seemed to be drafted in for the purpose of penalising the ratepayers. He thought the County Council of Sligo was quite justified in refusing to collect this rate. The result would be that the money would be filched from the agricultural grant. If the Government desired peace in Ireland those penal institutions must go. The peace must be genuine on both sides. There was now in Ireland a disposition to forget and forgive, but there could be no real forgetfulness or forgiveness until penal clauses of this kind were repealed.
    MR. FIELDsaid he hoped when the Attorny-General replied he would tell them the real reason why Dublin City was proclaimed. A more scandalous outrage than the proclamation of that city he never heard of. He trusted they would have a satisfactory reply as to why the citizens of Dublin were put under the Coercion Act when crime was almost unknown in Dublin. He thought he was entitled to a fair and square answer to that question.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid there seemed to be an opinion that no person should suffer who happened to be a Member of Parliament or a member of a County Council. He held that crime might be committed, and often was committed, in furtherance of an agitation. He thought intimidation was a crime, and it was in the endeavour to grapple with that crime, so widely spread in Ireland, that the Crimes Act was applied. The answer why Dublin had been proclaimed had been most effectively given before by the Chief Secretary, and he could only repeat the same answer. He did not wish to go into matters such as the extra police, which were entirely foreign to this Vote. Several hon. Members had asked questions with regard to the number of extra police sent here and there, but those were matters which would arise upon the Vote for the Police and not upon the Vote for Law Charges. The hon. Member for Kilkenny asked some questions in regard to alleged espionage by the police,
    1232
    but that question would arise on the Police Vote. He was not aware of the cases mentioned, and, as far as he knew, they were ordinary prosecutions for offences in the street taken by the police upon their own responsibility and did not come at all before the legal authorities.
    MR. DILLON: Who would answer for them?
    MR. ATKINSON: said the Chief Secretary would answer for them if they never went further than ordinary police prosecutions. Ordinary cases before the magistrates were dealt with on the spot without being taken up by the Attorney-General. If he had received notice of this Question he would have taken care to have informed himself as to the facts. It had been stated again and again that magistrates had come to such and such decisions at the behests of the Government.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member cried "Hear, hear." but as far as he knew that was a monstrous misstatement. He himself would scorn to do anything of the kind; he never did such a thing; he never knew it to be done, directly or indirectly. He had heard many accusations of this kind, and never heard one particle of proof to sustain them. He thought those persons who made such allegations ought to be called upon to produce some evidence in support of such charges before, they made them. Such charges made without proof might be more derogatory to the persons making them than to those against whom they were made. Resident magistrates had never been summoned to Dublin Castle to receive instructions.
    MR. KILBRIDEasked whether they were not invited to luncheon at Dublin Castle when the proclamations were issued, and what was the object?
    MR. ATKINSONwas not aware whether they were asked to Dublin Castle to luncheon, but if they were, it was certainly not to receive instructions as to how they were to decide on accept that offer any pending cases.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: They went there to get instructions.
    MR. ATKINSON: It was not to get instructions on any case that might come before them.
    MR. KILBRIDE: What did they go for?
    MR. ATKINSONsaid it was not to get instructions, either secretly or by suggestion, that they should sentence persons who came before them to hard labour in order to disqualify them from acting as county councillors. With regard to the cases in which punishment had involved disqualification from service on Councils, it was trifling with justice to say that a man was to be let off from due and adequate punishment because he was a county councillor.[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Nobody asks that."] He should have thought the fact that a man occupied the position of county councillor, and was looked up to by his constituency and those around him, was nil the more reason for his being more severely dealt with than an ordinary man, because his example was more vicious. He had never heard it suggested that because a man occupied a position of trust or public importance that he was not to be as severely punished as a man in a more humble position, provided always that the punishment was not undue or improper. With regard to the case of the hon. Member for North Longford, he did not propose to argue out the law affecting it, or to say whether the language complained of came within the statute, for the House of Commons was the very worst place for such a discussion. The hon. Member was tried by the magistrates and convicted. He appealed to the County Court Judge, who
    1234
    upheld the decision of the magistrates. But he would have been let off on appeal altogether if he had promised not to repeat the crime. The hon. Member did not accept that offer.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: If you had been in my place, would you, under the circumstances, have accepted?
    MR. ATKINSON: No, but I would not have been in your situation.
    MR. DILLON: You will not be too hard on the United Irish League now.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member for North Longford had implied that the sentence of hard labour was passed at his suggestion, because he was a county councillor.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he quoted what the Attorney-General's own representative stated.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid it wag not his business to tell the Court what sentence should be passed. His business was to advise upon the evidence, and to see that it was presented in Court in the most fair way. He had never directly or indirectly sought to Interfere with the Court or endeavoure secretly to obtain a conviction. He did not know that his representative had pressed for severe punishment, but that was a perfectly legitimate course to take.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he could send the Attorney-General a report of the case, showing that Dr. Faulkner stated that he was instructed to press for a severe punishment.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that was an entirely different thing from secretly or openly telling the Judge that he ought to decide in a particular way
    MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman should not misconstrue what he said. What he said was that his counsel pointed out to the County Court Judge that if hard labour was retained in the sentence he would be disqualified from acting as a county councillor or a Poor Law guardian. Dr. Faulkner stated that his instructions were that hard labour was necessary, and that the consequent disqualification was necessary to prevent him from committing the same offence.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member seemed to imply that hard labour was inflicted upon him because he was a county councillor. That was not the case. The Judge did not take into consideration the question of disqualification, but merely passed a sentence adequate to the crime. He was not in a position to make the declaration asked for by the hon. Member for East Mayo; and he passed from this case with the remark that he utterly and absolutely repudiated the idea that either resident magistrates or County Court Judges, in obedience to any suggestion from the Crown, or in pursuance of any policy indicated by the Crown, ever resort to inflict hard labour for the improper purpose of indirectly subjecting the convicted person to disqualification. He had never known a single particle of evidence in support of that. With reference to the Tipperary case, he changed the venue to Cork because he thought a fairer trial would be secured. Every sixpence of the additional cost would be paid by the Crown. It was the ordinary right of a civilian to have a change of venue.
    MR. DILLON: He could not pack the jury.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the men pleaded guilty.
    MR. DILLONreminded the right hon. Gentleman that innocent men might be convicted in Ireland on the sort of evidence Sheridan gave.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the Judge allowed them out on £5, with a warn-
    1236
    ing to behave better in future. He hoped they would take this to heart, but if they acted in a similar way again, and were convicted, they would probably not get off so lightly. With regard to Mr. Kilbride's case, he must say that the hon. Member had borne his punishment like a man, and that he had displayed a commendable good temper and courtesy since he had returned to the House.
    MR. KILBRIDEsaid he would inform the Attorney-General that, if the necessity arose, Mr. Kilbride was prepared to do the same thing again.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not intend to go into the particulars of the case, or to argue one way or another whether the verdict was right or wrong, but only to deal with the suggestion of unfairness. It was a case arising out of certain dealings by General Meres with a tenant of his, and the hon. Member went to the estate and made a speech, for which he was tried and convicted.
    [AN HON. MEMBER ON THE IRISH BENCHES: By a packed jury.]
    *MR. DELANY: If I were accused before the same jury they would hang me.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he was thankful to the hon. Member for having referred to the jury. This was a way in which the Crown Solicitor packed the jury! Dr. Todd, the Crown Solicitor, got a panel and marked it, but when he went down he heard that there were planters in the district, and he came to the conclusion that planters would be unfair to the accused. He then went to the solicitor of the accused, and asked him if there were any jurors on the panel who, in his opinion, would be hostile to his client, because, if he would point them out, he would challenge them on behalf of the Crown. The defendant's solicitor stated that there was a strong feeling among the planters, and Dr. Todd decided to set aside every planter. Accordingly, twelve men were set aside by the Crown as

    1237
    likely to be hostile to the accused. The defendant's solicitor also objected to three others as prejudiced. Dr. Todd inquired, and he found that, in his opinion, there was no evidence of that. This was on the day before the trial. Dr. Todd thought that these three men were fair. However, while the jury was being empanelled the defendant's solicitor challenged one, which was allowed, so that out of a panel of forty, thirteen were set aside at the direct suggestion of the solicitor of the accused.
    MR. DILLON: How many Catholics were on that jury?
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not know, but he knew that thirteen Protestants were set aside. That was a fair specimen of how things were done. He did not think it was humanly possible for a prosecution to be conducted with more absolute fairness to the accused. As to the change of venue, it was quite competent to the hon. Member to have objected to that, but he did not do so.
    MR. DILLONsaid that what he had stated was that, in Catholic Queen's County, there was a jury of eleven Protestants and one Catholic, and yet the Attorney-General said that it was not a packed jury.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that at all events he had only stated what was reported to him by the Crown Solicitor; and he thought that it was a striking instance of an absolute desire on the part of the Crown Solicitor to do what was right.
    MR. DILLONsaid that the Attorney-General had not stated whether the Proclamation would be removed.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that he had no information, and could not make any announcement on that point.
    MR. KILBRIDEsaid he could not accept the statement which the Attorney-General had made on the information of the Crown Solicitor of what took place at his trial. He supposed that no prisoner ever accused by an Irish Government for a criminal offence had had the same experience as he had. While he
    1238
    was in prison at Maryborough, he himself had actually seen the special jury panel of 240 names of men in the Queen's County. He had it before him, and it was marked in blue and red pencil by Dublin. Castle.
    MR. ATKINSON: Marked by the Crown Solicitor.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Was the Crown Solicitor not part and parcel of Dublin Castle? Neither the Crown Solicitor for West Meath, nor the Crown Solicitor for Queen's County marked that panel; but a certain gentleman who was the most prominent Unionist in Queen's County Everybody knew that that was the case, and that he did it with the aid of his own clerk from information received from the police. The right hon. Gentleman stated that his solicitor had got thirteen Protestant gentlemen put off the jury; but every one of them, although a Protestant, was a Home Ruler as well as a sympathiser with the tenants. Why was William Davidson, a Scotch gentleman, who had lived the better part of his life in Ireland, retired? It was because he had been constantly giving evidence in the Land Courts on behalf of the tenants as a land valuer. Would the Attorney-General give the name of one man who was ordered to stand by who was not a Liberal and a Home Ruler, and the name of one man who was kept on who was not a Unionist and possibly an Orangeman. He wished to state that his solicitor informed him that the conversation between him and Dr. Todd took place on the day of the trial, and not before it as the Attorney-General had alleged. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Crown never interfered with the resident magistrates in their decision, and never suggested what sentences were to be given. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was that the resident magistrates happened to be down at Dublin Castle when the Proclamation of the Crimes Act was made? He meant the principal resident magistrates—those whom the authorities in Dublin Castle knew they had most confidence in. Were they asked to lunch? And what was the ménu? Was there anything about hard labour in it? Was it on the soup, or on the dessert? Ménu cards could be got up which would suggest

    1239
    certain things in just as good a way as by giving direct instructions They knew the right hon. Gentleman was a man of more than mediocre ability; and surely with his great ability, and the light of his Irish wit, he would be able to devise means of conveying to resident magistrates what Dublin Castle wanted without doing it in a clumsy fashion. That it was done he was as certain as that the right hon. Gentleman was at that moment sitting on the Treasury Bench. If a resident magistrate were not a reliable too of Dublin Castle he was sent back with God speed. If he was a reliable tool, he was brought to some place where he was likely to be useful.
    Certain hon. Members had suggested to the Government the desirability of a man of his own name being brought in, in connection with the Crimes Act; but, notwithstanding the friendly suggestion, that was not done. The resident magistrate who did not carry out the behests, or what he believed to be the behests, of Dublin Castle, would be sent to the most remote parts of Ireland. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the County Court Judge who sent his hon. friend the Member for North Longford to hard labour did not take into consideration whether he was a county councillor or district councillor—that he only took into his consideration the offence. Why did not the same County Court Judge send his hon. friend the Member for the Birr Division of King's County to hard labour? Why did he remove the hard labour part of the sentence? The difference was entirely due to the fact that, during the time that had elapsed between the sentence of his hon. friend the Member for North Longford and his hon. friend the Member for the Birr Division of King's County, certain comments had appeared in the Press, and public opinion was at work. Because of that public opinion Judge Curran removed the hard labour part of the sentence on his hon. friend the Member for the Birr Division, because he said he did not think the county should be deprived of his valuable services on the County Boards. What was the difference in criminality between his two hon. friends? Both got hard labour from the resident magistrate; in
    1240
    one case, Judge Curran confirmed the hard labour, in the other case he removed it. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether that was due to the effect of public opinion or to any difference in the offences of his two hon. friends. Perhaps it was because his hon. friend the Member for the Birr Division was not a newspaper proprietor, and that he was thought to be more harmless. Reverting to the Mary borough case, he would ask how it was that the Government found it necessary to summon 240 special jurors to try one case under the Crimes Act.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that under the Act the whole panel should be summoned.
    MR. KILBRIDEsaid it looked curious to the uninitiated. He thought that the 118 common jurors who had been summoned to try eighteen cases, two being capital offences, for which a man and a woman were hanged, would have been sufficient to try one Crimes Act case. That was the kind of thing that brought the law into contempt in Ireland. They all knew that Westmeath was proclaimed for this one case; and that Queen's County was proclaimed also in order that the case might be tried there. The charge against him was not of having taken part in a conspiracy in some hole and corner fashion, not of having run away from the light of day, or of having done anything in the dark. The charge against him was that in the middle of the day, with armed policemen around, and with a police notetaker, surrounded by six policemen, in the centre of the crowd he made use of certain words. What convicted him was that having told a good teetotal story the police notetaker was unable to report it properly. The story he related referred to a clergyman, a friend of his, who was a strong advocate of temperance. Sunday after Sunday he extorted his congregation in the direction of temperance and against excessive drink. He was in the habit of saying:—
    "Why are you not able to pay your rent? Drink, the cursed drink! Why is it that you are evicted and thrown on the road by your landlord? Drink, the cursed drink! Why when you are evicted do you form criminal

    1241
    conspiracies? Drink, the cursed drink! Why do you fire at your landlord? Drink, the cursed drink! Why do you miss him? Drink, the cursed drink!"
    It was because of that story, told in the interests of temperance, that he was convicted. He should have said that the meeting was proclaimed; there was a great deal of excitement; and they drew up at the first cross-roads they arrived at, knowing there was a police cordon half a mile further on. They all knew how difficult it was for even a practised shorthand writer to accurately report a speech, even when sitting at a table. How much more difficult it must have been for the police notetaker, standing in the middle of a crowd, surrounded by police and with the crowd taking every favourable opportunity of giving him a push. The right hon. Gentleman had no experience of that. No doubt £5,000 a year of Government salary would not give him any practical experience in such matters. The police shorthand writer was fairly capable; but he jumbled up his own statements with certain interruptions in the crowd. The story came out very badly, and did not appear as if it was spoken in the interest of temperance, although it was. At any rate, he claimed he had a right to be tried by a jury which was composed of neither Orangemen nor Freemasons. He did not object to be tried by a Protestant jury. He was prepared on any charge to go before any impartial Protestant jury in Queen's County; but he was not in favour of going before a Protestant jury from which every man known to be a Liberal in politics, or a sympathiser with the United Irish League, or with the tenants, was religiously excluded by the right hon. Gentleman and his representatives. It was a great thing for Irish nationality that in Queen's County the Government were unable to pack a jury without objecting to every man who had any respect for the views and sentiments of Tone and Fitzgerald. All he had to tell the right hon. Gentleman was that whatever the future might have in store for Irish Nationalists—and he hoped they had passed all trouble and difficulty—he was with his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo when he said that whoever else had changed they had not changed. Six months imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison had not changed his
    1242
    views; and it only confirmed the view he had held for twenty-five years that nothing had ever been got, or would ever be got, from the British Government except by opposition. Every concession Ireland had received from the Imperial Parliament had been wrung from it; and further concessions would be wrung from it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked if the gentleman referred to was still Crown Solicitor.
    MR. ATKINSONwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to call attention to what he considered the very hard case of two of his constituents. The hon. Member for Tipperary had been good enough to refer to the matter in his absence; but he did not gather from the Attorney-General's speech that he made any reply at all. As the Attorney-General well knew, the cases to which he wished to refer were those of the chairman of the rural district council and the chairman of the board of guardians at Corofin, in his constituency, who were imprisoned under the Crimes Act; and because they were sentenced to hard labour they were now deprived of all right to exercise their duties on the local councils to which they were elected. As far as these two men—Mr. Flannagan and Mr. Griffin—were concerned they did not object to hard labour; but they considered it a great hardship to be deprived, by that hard labour, of the right of sitting on the local boards on their release. It might seem quite right to hon. Members representing English constituencies that where a man was convicted of an offence sufficiently serious to deserve hard labour he should be deprived of the right of sitting on a local council. But a local councillor in England who was sentenced to hard labour must have committed some serious offence which everyone would condemn; but the so-called offences in Ireland did not exist in England at all. It was a totally different matter in Ireland, because a man was convicted for an offence which had no existence in

    1243
    England. These offences were political and certainly agrarian; and it was a monstrous injustice that such men should not only have to suffer imprisonment but should also be deprived of their rights to represent their fellow-countrymen in elected positions. Mr. Flannagan, as a result of his imprisonment, became for a considerable period insane, and had to be sent to a lunatic asylum from the prison. Altogether it has been an extremely painful case, and was the subject of a long inquiry. Mr. Flannagan finally recovered, and the people, who had the greatest confidence in him, re-elected him to the position of chairman of the district council. He was, however, told by the Dublin Castle authorities that if he continued to act he would be subjected to severe penalties. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether such acts were not calculated to create disorder more than anything else in the district. The Crimes Act had now been removed, the whole thing was past and over, and he seriously asked the Attorney-General if he intended to pursue the matter further and prevent these two gentlemen from acting in their representative capacity.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid Mr. Flannagan was disqualified by statute, and it was impossible for the Government to waive that disqualification. The request of the hon. Member for East Mayo that the Government should bring in a Bill to repeal the disqualifying provision was a different matter.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked what penalties would be imposed on Mr. Flannagan if he continued to act.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that very expensive proceedings might be taken to set aside an order made by him, and he might be very heavily mulcted in costs.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that then they were led to understand that in order to pursue Mr. Flannagan the whole district was to be kept in a state of turmoil and disturbance. The King would land in Ireland in a few hours;
    1244
    and it was an extraordinary thing to him that in one small district like that the Government should announce through the Attorney-General their intention of continuing that action. It would undoubtedly keep the district in a state of disorder. The people of the district were not to be trifled with, and while they were quite ready for peace if they were pursued further there would be unpleasant consequences.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that the hon. Gentleman asked him a legal question as to whether the Government would reinstate these gentlemen, and his reply was that the Government had no such power.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the Government need not proceed unless they liked. Certainly Mr. Flannagan would pursue the course he thought right, and he would be supported by the people of the district. If the Government desired turmoil and disorder, they would proceed against Mr. Flannagan; if not, they would allow the matter to lapse. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not challenge the people of this district to further action in the matter.
    And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Wednesday.

  MILITARY WOKKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Committee to consider of making further provision for defraying the expenses of certain Military Works and other military services, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for those purposes (King's recommendation signified), this day.—(Lord Stanley.)
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7).
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Strabane and Letterkenny Railway; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time); Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation; Sheffield Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill. Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on 23rd June last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill; London United Tramways Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Craven and the Lord Belhaven and Stenton be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Waldegrave and the Lord Kilmaine. Read, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Denman be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Mayo; read, and agreed to.
Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 143 and 143A be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 3a; agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Hyde Corporation Bill; Leigh Corporasion Bill; Broadstairs Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London and North-Western Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Hexham Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Nantwich Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Torquay Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Nelson Corporation Bill; West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill; Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order) with Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Committee of the whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3025. Turkey (Baghdad).
  No. 3026. Turkey (Beirut and the Coast of Syria).

  COMMERCIAL No 5 (1903).
  Correspondence with the Governments of Belgium and Germany as to their commercial relations with Great Britain and British Colonies.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners, for the period from 1st April, 1902, to 31st March. 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (DEPARTMENT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL).
  Second Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and deposited in the Public
  272
  Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Rules made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the examination in music.

  INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1901–1902, and the nine preceding years, thirty-eighth number (being the fourth decennial Report).
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PISTOLS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS—THE POSITION OF INDIA.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, who had given notice "To call attention to the position of India with regard to the proposal before the country for the arrangement of preferential tariffs between the United Kingdom and the rest of the British Empire, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether our commercial relations with India form part of the inquiry upon which they are engaged, and if any correspondence has passed with the Government of India on the subject," said: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have expressed their desire that Mr. Chamberlain's plan for preferential tariffs for the Empire shall be fully discussed. I therefore beg to be allowed to put forward some considerations in respect to its application to India. No one can recognise more fully than I do the value of Mr. Chamberlain's services as Secretary of State for the colonies, or the weight which attaches to his opinions upon colonial

  273
  questions. I must, however, beg to observe that his attention seems to have been directed exclusively to the colonies, and that in his speeches announcing and defending his proposals he has made no reference whatever to the foreign possessions of the Crown, of which India is incomparably the most important.
  I have no desire in the slightest degree to depreciate the importance of our trade with the colonies, but I am bound to point out to your Lordships that our trade with India is at least as important. The whole trade of India has reached the value of £173,000,000 sterling. In 1901, the value of the exports from the United Kingdom to India was £35,000,000—a sum equal to the value of our exports to Australia, New Zealand, and Canada together. The question of the trade of this country with the colonies was referred to in a passage in a speech made by Mr. Chamberlain at the Constitutional Club, which was quoted to your Lordships the other night by the noble Duke the Leader of the House, and it may be interesting to know what the figures really are. The last statistical abstract of the trade of the United Kingdom shows that the declared value of the exports of British and Irish produce in 1901 was £280,000,000 sterling. Of this, £175,250,000 were taken by foreign countries, and £104,750,000 by British possessions. Of the latter, about half was taken by the self-governing colonies. In round numbers, the figures were—Australia and New Zealand, £27,000,000; the Cape and Natal, £17,250,000; and the North American Colonies, £8,000,000; giving a total of £52,250,000. The remainder—£52,500,000—was taken by other British possessions, and of this India took £35,000,000. India, therefore, took one-third of the whole trade with British possessions.
  It cannot be denied then that India holds an important position in the commerce of the Empire, and that her interests should not be overlooked, as hitherto they appear to have been, when such great changes as those proposed by Mr. Chamberlain are put before the country. A circumstance connected with the position of India must not be lost sight of. The Customs tariff of India has for the last five and twenty
  274
  years been framed upon the same principles as that of the United Kingdom — namely, upon what are commonly called free trade principles. Slight duties upon imports have been imposed, but for revenue purposes only, and not to protect Indian manufacturers. An ad valorem duty of 5 per cent. is levied upon what are called general imports; 3½ per cent. upon cotton manufactures, with an equivalent Excise upon the produce of Indian cotton mills; commodities which are useful for the development of the resources of India are admitted at a duty of 1 per cent., or free; while, as with us, special rates are put upon spirits and other liquors, with a corresponding Excise upon Indian products of a similar kind. It has for a long series of years been held by Indian financiers, and notably by Sir John Strachey and Lord Cromer, that the condition of the people of India and her financial interests call for the freest practicable interchange of her products with the rest of the world. The Government of India, in 1882, when Lord Cromer was financial member of the Council of the Governor - General, under my noble friend Lord Ripon, took off all Customs duties upon the general imports, and they were only reimposed owing to the financial difficulties which occurred in 1894.
  The trade of India has flourished under this system of free trade. The value of her sea-borne commerce with the world, which received a considerable impetus from the tariff of 1875, by which the import duties were reduced from 7½ to 5 per cent. and most of the export duties were taken off, has increased from £104,000,000 to £164,000,000 since that time. Her manufactures have very largely increased. There are important manufactures of the coarser qualities of cotton yarn and piece goods. Jute manufactures have sprung into existence, and now form an important part of Indian exports. In 1876 only four millions of yards of jute cloth were exported from India; in 1901 the quantity had risen to 365,000,000 of yards. In 1876 24,500,000 of pounds of tea were exported; in 1901 the exports were 192,000,000 of pounds. Sir E. Law, the Financial Member of Lord Curzon's Government, said in his Budget statement of last March that he anticipates a further development of

  275
  Indian industries. This progress of Indian manufactures is not due to protection. The 5 per cent. duty upon imports, although it may have some slight protective effect, cannot be sufficient seriously to interfere with competition from outside. The progress of Indian manufactures is due to the natural advantages possessed by India, and is the more satisfactory because it rests upon a sound basis.
  While the trade and manufactures of India have flourished under free trade there is no ground for complaint as to the effect of the Indian tariff upon the trade of the United Kingdom with India. We hold a commanding position in respect of the imports of India from Europe and the United States of America. The trade of India with Asia and Africa may be put out of consideration in this connection, for it consists of commodities which we do not produce. Taking the most important of our imports into India—namely, cotton yarn and manufactures — their value in 1902 was £20,500,000 while the value of the same commodities imported into India from the rest of Europe and the United States together was considerably under £1,000,000. The price of cotton manufactures has fallen considerably of late years, but a comparison of the quantities of the piece goods which are measured shows that the quantity imported into India from the United Kingdom has nearly doubled since 1876. In that year 1,166,000,000 yards were imported, and in 1902 2,154,000,000 yards. The quantity imported from all other countries in 1876 was 20,250,000 yards, and in 1902, 35,750,000 yards; so that there has been an increase of about 1,000,000,000 of yards in the imports of our cotton manufactures, and of only 15,500,000 of yards in those of all other countries. Lancashire has more than held its own in supplying India with the finer qualities of cotton goods, while India has increased her output in the coarser qualities which are manufactured from the short staple cotton grown in India.
  The condition of the trade of India having been so healthy under free trade, I ask, why should there be a change? But as Mr. Chamberlain advocates a system of preferential tariffs
  276
  for the Empire, I will try to show what its effects would be upon India. I have already pointed out that India treats our cotton manufactures on a system of perfect equality with her own, and that the 5 per cent. duty imposed by the Indian general tariff can hardly have any protective effect. There is no need, therefore, for any bargain with India in order to improve the position of our manufactures in their competition with the manufactures of India. The position of India in this respect is altogether different from that of the colonies, which, impose Customs duties upon our manufactures in order to protect their own from our competition. The only way of which I can think by which a preferential tariff in our favour could be arranged in India would be by permitting the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom to be imported free while similar commodities imported from elsewhere should be charged with much higher duties than the 5 per cent. now charged In return for such preferential treatment given to us I presume that India would receive some such advantage in regard to her exports to the United Kingdom as Mr. Chamberlain proposes for the colonies. In other words, if India gives protection to our manufactures we should give some protection to her trade with us.
  This I conceive to be the system advocated by Mr. Chamberlain for the Empire. Let us see what the United Kingdom and India would gain or lose by such a transaction. The value of the imports of private merchandise by sea from the United Kingdom into India in 1901 was £32,500,000 while the value of the imports from the rest of Europe and the United States was £10,000,000, so that at first sight it would appear that under a preferential tariff we might get a considerable share of this trade. But it consists to a great extent of articles such as mineral oils, sugar, and wine, which we do not produce, and an examination of the figures shows that the margin upon which we might expect to gain something must be reduced to about £5,000,000. In fact, we already have the lion's share of the imports into India of such commodities as we can supply. In return for this slight advantage, we

  277
  should have to favour Indian producers at the expense of the consumers in the United Kingdom. Indian tea requires no protection—the tea of India and Ceylon has nearly driven Chinese tea out of our market. India has a virtual monopoly in rice. The Indian exports which might benefit by protection are wheat, sugar, and tobacco. The trade of India with us in wheat is liable to great fluctuations; it depends upon the harvests in India, upon the price of wheat in the markets of the world, and upon the demand for wheat in India. For instance, in 1900, which was a famine year, no wheat was exported from India. I very much doubt whether any such duty as is likely to be imposed upon wheat here would be of advantage to the producers of wheat in India.
  A considerable stimulus, however, might be given to the production of sugar and tobacco in India if differential duties in favour of India were put upon imports of sugar and tobacco from other countries, but I hardly think any Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to be found who would entertain such an idea. I will not stop to examine whether a preferential duty created on sugar in favour of India would be consistent with the Sugar Convention into which His Majesty's Government have entered. Moreover, the whole fiscal system of both countries would be upset by the introduction of protection. I will not dwell on the effect upon the trade of the United Kingdom, but to India the result would be very serious. Her financial condition greatly depends upon finding a market for her exports; a preferential tariff in favour of the United Kingdom could not fail to involve India in a war of tariffs. She does most of her export trade with other countries than the United Kingdom, for we only take about one-fourth of her exports, and any serious diminution of her exports would be severely felt by the people and derange the finances of India. I might dwell further upon this point, but I think I have said enough to show that the introduction of a preferential tariff into India would be highly injurious both to India and to the United Kingdom.
  So far, I have dealt with this matter from the economic standpoint alone, but political considerations, I need not
  278
  remind your Lordships, must not be left out of sight. I ask your Lordships to consider the effect which would be produced upon public opinion in India if our fiscal policy should be changed for the avowed object of promoting what are supposed to be the interests of the United Kingdom. The feelings of natives of India have always been strongly pronounced in favour of the protection of native manufactures. Protection is already being discussed in the Indian Press in consequence of Mr. Chamberlain's speeches. English Finance Ministers and English Viceroys have met this feeling by declaring that the fiscal system of India has not been constructed with the object of giving any special advantages to the United Kingdom, but because we believe a tariff based upon free trade principles to be for the true interests of both countries. In my judgment we have been honest in our profession, and we can appeal to results in support of our arguments. But if the free trade tariff is to be changed into a system of preferential duties, we must expect that an agitation will be raised in favour of protecting Indian manufactures. Indian Statesmen—and there are many of them fully capable of appreciating the position—will say—"Why do you treat India differently from your colonies? You are ready to accept from them fiscal arrangements which, while giving you some advantage over the foreigner, will still leave substantial duties upon your manufactures for the protection of the manufactures of the colonies. Can you refuse the same treatment to India? We give you the preferential tariff for which you ask—allow us to protect our own manufactures." I do not know what answer could be given to that argument. I should not like to rely on my own opinion in this matter, but I will quote the opinion of the noble Marquess opposite. In 1894, when the noble Marquess had just come home from his successful Viceroyalty in India, and when a similar question was being discussed, he said—
  "Many causes are at work which should make us pause before we do anything to shake the confidence of the people of India in the absolute disinterestedness of our rule. The Press takes advantage of the wide measure of liberty which it enjoys to speak its mind with a

  279
  licence that would not be tolerated by the rulers of any other Eastern country. The Government must make up its mind to be misrepresented, and may in ordinary cases console itself by the hope that the truth will prevail, but it should think twice before it supplies the party of agitation with a real grievance and with the materials for an indictment to which no reply is possible."
  The noble Marquess was supported on that occasion by Lord Roberts, who said—
  "While as a soldier I believe that the prosperity of India depends on the maintenance of our naval and military supremacy, as an Englishman who has lived for more than forty years in that country I know that the position we occupy in India is mainly due to the firm reliance of the natives on our integrity and honesty of purpose, and our determination to do what is right and best for them. If this feeling is once destroyed the cons-equences would be disastrous."
  These observations dispose of the selfish doctrine which has been advanced—namely, that England can do whatever it likes with India, and whether it is right or just does not signify. I remember but too well the baneful effects which followed from the acute controversy between the Lancashire manufacturers and the Government of India, which was so courageously and satisfactorily settled by Sir Henry Fowler, not to deprecate in the strongest terms I can use the introduction of a preferential tariff into India, which would seem to me to be almost certain to produce similar agitation in future.
  Mr. Chamberlain has declared that—
  "A system of preferential tariffs is the only system by which this Empire can be kept together."
  I have tried to show that this doctrine cannot be accepted so far as one of the most important parts of the Empire is concerned, and that to introduce such a system into India would be economically inexpedient and politically dangerous. Perhaps some of your Lordships may think that I have built up a fine castle in the air in order to have the satisfaction of knocking it down, and that my arguments may be sound enough but that the preferential system for India which I have been discussing will never be proposed. My Lords this is not my fault. Mr. Chamberlain's plan for the colonies is that they shall give us preferential tariffs in return for taxes upon the food of the people of the United Kingdom.
  280
  He has been silent as to his plan for India. What can I do but assume that his intention is to proceed on the same lines? If I am wrong, I hope that one of the right hon. Gontleman's colleagues will explain to-night what his plan for India really is. No light was thrown upon it by a short answer given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. He implied, however, that our fiscal arrangements with India formed part of the inquiry in which, His Majesty's Government are engaged, and I must assume that this is the case. Has this subject been considered, and has His Majesty's Government come to any determination upon it? I beg to ask, in conclusion, what the plan for India is, whether the Secretary of State for India in Council, to whom Parliament has entrusted the financial interests of India, has expressed any opinion upon it, and, if not, whether he will be invited to do so; also whether the Government of India has been consulted. I trust, at any rate, that the plan, whatever it is, and the views of those in authority upon it, will be placed before Parliament and the country before the mandate for which Mr. Chamberlain is about to ask in favour of preferential tariffs for the Empire becomes the subject of discussion in the autumn.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down, who speaks with so much authority on every-thing which concerns India, has pointed out the grave difficulties of preferential trade in the case of that country—difficulties, however, perhaps, rather than impossibilities. But while, on the one hand, India has little to gain from preferential trade, the same may be said with reference to this country. Our imports into India amount to no less than £32,500,000, against £10,000,000 from foreign countries as mentioned by the noble Earl. Of these one-fifth, or £2,000,000, come from Austria-Hungary; £1,000,000 of the amount consists of sugar, which we do not produce here. The next largest importer into India is Russia, with £1,900,000, and out of that sum £1,870,000 consists of mineral oils, which we do not produce. The imports from Russia into India, therefore, with the

  281
  exception of mineral oils, are practically nil. Germany's imports into India are £1,700,000; but over £300,000 consists of sugar, and a large portion of the rest is made up of other substances and products which we do not produce. The imports of the United States into India are £830,000, and there, again, £300,000 consists of mineral oils, so that the whole importation from the United States, except mineral oils, is only about £500,000. The imports from Spain amount to £290,000, and £280,000 consists of raw cotton and jute, so that the other imports are absolutely nothing. It seems to be clear, then, from the figures that while on the one hand India has little to gain from preferential trade, we also in this country have little to gain from it here. Nevertheless this question must be faced and decided; it cannot be disposed of by a few general observations. The discussions at successive colonial Conferences cannot be ignored, and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs showed very clearly the other night that the novel systems of bounties, cartels, and syndicates have raised problems which did not exist in the time of Cobden and Bright. Sir K. Grey admits that—
  "He could imagine a case in which some foreign country might mete out to us treatment hat was so obviously hostile and unfair that it would be impossible for us to sit still under it."
  But cases have arisen which give good ground of complaint, and would amply justify retaliation, though I should not advocate it, hoping that our grievances may be redressed without our taking any such extreme step. Sir R. Giffen has referred to this in a recent article as regards our shipping. We should certainly exhaust all the resources of negotiation before proceeding to reprisals, but in the last resort we may be driven to do so, and in doing so need not, I think, depart from free trade principles. The favoured-nation clause is the sheet anchor of our commerce, but in some cases it is kept only in letter and broken in reality.
  So far as trade arrangements are concerned, foreign countries may be divided into two categories. Some, Turkey for instance, treat us fairly. They impose certain specified rates of charge on all countries and all goods.
  282
  Other countries, however, while ostensibly giving us the favoured-nation clause, and in fact imposing equal duties on all nations, place high, and sometimes prohibitive, rates on just those articles which we produce. Directly our manufacturers establish a trade in any article the duties on it are raised against them. Suppose we acted in the same way. Suppose, for example, we raised the duty on claret or hock—theoretically it would apply to the whole world, practically it would affect France or Germany alone. From this point of view we have, I submit, a weapon in our own hands which in the last resort we might use without affecting free trade. If we have nothing to give, we have much that we might take away. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has, in fact, in his hands the big pistol for which he has asked; but the noble Marquess, I am sure, will agree that pistols should only be used in the last resort. But what are the views of the colonies? We have given them long ago a free market for all their produce. We do not ask them to exclude foreign manufacturers. What we wish is that they should treat us as we treat them. Do their wisest statesmen ask us to do more than we have done? Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said that Canada gave us a preference because—
  "We looked carefully round the world, and we found England to be the only country which receives our products freely. We desired to show England our gratitude."
  In his Liverpool speech Sir Wilfrid Laurier also said—
  "It is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England."
  And in Canada he said that preferential treatment might be an advantage—
  "But we cannot have it so long as we have a protective tariff in Canada. … But the moment we are ready—it may take a long time, but I hope that some day it will come—to discard our tariff, the moment we come to the doctrine of free trade, then it is possible to have a commercial mutual preference based on free trade in the Empire."
  Mr. Seddon also, though he is reported as having since expressed a somewhat different opinion, speaking at the New Zealand dinner, assured us that the New Zealand Government, in proposing to

  283
  grant preference to the mother country did so—
  "In the spirit and desire to help—to give, and not a desire to take. They felt it was an opportunity to assist the mother country; it was love, and not sordid motives, that prompted the sending of the resolution."
  That there are grounds for inquiry cannot, I think, be denied. On the other hand the subjects which have been mentioned as the subjects of the inquiry do not include one of the most important. What are the colonies going to do? Hitherto their object has been to exclude our manufactures. How can we decide whether any alteration in our fiscal policy is desirable until we know what line the colonies are going to take? It is no answer to say that they are willing to impose 33 per cent. more on foreign goods. If they exclude our goods what does it matter to us if in the case of foreigners the duties are higher still? Our real competition in the colonies is not with foreign manufacturers but with colonial manufacturers. How can the country be expected to give the Government a mandate on such an important subject in the present state of matters? The Government require no mandate to enable them to negotiate; and that, in fact, they have done already. It is, of course, very interesting to know the views of our leading statesmen, but it is still more important to ascertain the views of the colonies. Are they prepared to abandon protection and adopt free trade within the Empire? If they are, it may be worth our while to alter our policy. But if they are not, how can they expect us to depart from our present position? It would be most unwise and ungracious to throw cold water on any real proposals for closer trade connection with the colonies. An appeal to the country on such an issue would be most unfortunate. On the other hand, how can the country be asked to abandon the policy of fifty years without knowing what is to be adopted in its stead? And yet, if we decide to maintain the existing system, we shall seem to flaunt, and shall certainly be told that we are flaunting, the colonies. We should be wantonly entering on a course which is almost sure to rouse bad blood between the mother country and the colonies. Surely the Government are amply justified in negotiating. They have—as I have
  284
  said—done so already. The colonics propose to give the mother country a preference. We welcome their intention. It is impossible, it would be most ungracious and unwise, to meet them by a simple non possumus. We must face the question. The Unionist Party feel, and are justified in feeling, great confidence in the Prime Minister, in the Duke of Devonshire, in Mr. Chamberlain, and the other ministers. If they could negotiate an arrangement with the colonies which, in their judgment, was fair and wise, I believe it would be one which the country might and would accept; but to go to the country on a mere question of preferential trade in the abstract would surely be unfair to the country, might break up the Unionist Party, which would be a grave misfortune, and, what would be still more deplorable, would perhaps even break up the Empire itself.
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, my noble friend who has introduced this question speaks with so much authority on behalf of all those who have held the high office of Viceroy of India that I should have thought it almost unnecessary for me to interpose, but he desired particularly that I, as having had more recent experience than his own, should say a word or two in regard to the subject which he has brought before the House. On the general view of the matter I shall not detain the House at any great length, because I entirely agree with the opinions which have been put before your Lordships by the noble Earl. But I have, perhaps, this justification for saying a word or two, that during my time in India there was a good deal of discussion on the imposition of the Customs duties which were proposed in 1894. I must confess that it made a great impression upon my mind, that upon my arrival in India, with a rooted conviction for free trade, the first great duty which I was called upon to perform should be the introduction of a measure for the imposition of duties. But I am sure that the noble Marquess opposite, as my predecessor in the office of Viceroy of India, will bear me out in the statement that the necessity for those duties, for revenue purposes only,

  285
  had become urgent before my arrival in India, and their urgency was imperative.
  I refer to them on this occasion because I think that what happened illustrates to some extent the difficulties which have been foreshadowed by the noble Earl as likely to occur in the future. It took three years to settle the arrangements in connection with the introduction of those duties into India, though, as the noble Earl has pointed out, they were very moderate duties—at the highest point 5 per cent. ad valorem; and, as I have said, they were introduced for purely revenue purposes. Manufacturers on both sides objected to the imposition of a duty which did not also affect their rivals, and the solution which was eventually arrived at was that which was proposed by Sir Henry Fowler, who was then Secretary of State for India, which brought in an Excise duty on cotton goods—a measure which excited a very considerable amount of opposition in India, and which really left matters balanced as they were before. Throughout the whole of this period there was a great deal of friction. There was a great deal of friction when the first proposal was made for the introduction of the duties; there was a great deal of friction because the cotton duty at that time was omitted; there was a great deal of friction when it was proposed to tax cotton; and there was still further friction when, in order to meet the claims of Lancashire, an Excise duty was imposed on Indian manufactures.
  The noble Earl has said that we could, of course, use the argument, though he thought it was a dangerous one, that it was the will of the British Government, and that that will must be obeyed. I had some difficulty in regard to the legislation that was necessary in India. It did not seem possible at one time to progress in the manner that was desired, and I thought it my duty to remind my Council of the nature of their powers in regard to legislation. At that time, rather unfortunately for myself, I made use of an expression which is very commonly used just now, and which has occurred this evening, in regard to the "mandate" which a Minister wishes to obtain for a policy that he professes. It
  286
  is an expression very commonly used, I think, with reference to a seat in the House of Commons, and it was in regard to that illustration that I used it in my speech on that occasion. But it was immediately seized upon and converted into an expression of the mandate of the Secretary of State, and throughout my term of office I was always met on every convenient opportunity by an assertion that I was in favour of Government by mandate. I do not mention this matter because I have any personal feeling in regard to it, but I think it is a good illustration of the rapidity with which ideas of that kind are taken up in India, and taken up in a very insidious and dangerous form, because they very often excite a considerable amount of sympathy among the European population in India itself.
  At that time, of course, we had to deal solely with the relations between home and Indian merchants, but I venture to think that any difficulties of that sort would now be increased tenfold, and that it would be necessary to safeguard Indian interests with regard not only to the mother country but to each colony. I would like to give an illustration in support of that contention. Take the case of the great and growing industry in coal. If the coal of the United Kingdom is to have a preference in the colonial markets, what is to happen to Indian coal? It appears to me that it would be intolerable that Indian coal should be put at any disadvantage in markets, such as, say, Singapore, or even its next door neighbour. Ceylon. Yet if that is to be avoided it will be necessary to have a whole system of relations, not only between the United Kingdom and the colonies, but between India and the colonies also. As the taxation of food has been often spoken of in connection with this question, I should like to say one word with regard to Indian wheat. The noble Earl stated that in his opinion Indian wheat would probably not be so much affected, and he dwelt particularly, I think, on the case of famines, when the supply of wheat is naturally wanted on the spot. I sincerely trust that Indian famines will not be so often recurrent in the future as they have been of late years; but, apart

  287
  from that, I rather think we must take wheat into account as an Indian export. It is well known to those who are acquainted with India that the native of India does not live habitually upon wheat, but upon millet and other kinds of grain, which are not exported in the same way. Since the noble Earl's connection with India, there has been a great extension of irrigation, and I think I may say that the irrigated lands are, in many cases, wheat lands, and must be regarded as wheat-exporting areas. I think, therefore, that the interests of India, with regard to wheat, will require consideration.
  As those connected with India know, India depends largely on its land revenue. But this land revenue is governed by a system of land settlements—this always struck me as an admirable part of our system, but it is probably not familiar to many Members of this House—and anything that disturbs the current rate of prices very materially affects the land settlements which have been made. I am not going to elaborate this point, because the Government of India in 1897, when we had to deal with proposals which were then put forward for bimetallism, went very thoroughly into this question, and showed the great dangers which were involved to India in regard to it. I would only say here that on that occasion I had warnings from most experienced officers of the Government of India, showing how much the Government might be affected by any disturbance of prices, not so much from the point of view of loss of revenue as of loss of confidence of the people in the settlements that had been made. There are two ways, of course, in which the question may be dealt with. India may be included in the scheme of the Government, or it may not be included. If it is included, the noble Earl who brought forward this subject has shown how many difficulties will present themselves; and I am not sure that I do not go a little further than he does in regard to any question of excluding India from any plan. I cannot help thinking that to exclude India might, in certain circumstances, give rise to many of the political dangers to which he alluded. If
  288
  it should be possible—I only put it hypo-thetically—to bring forward a great scheme which would confer benefit on the United Kingdom and its dependencies and India should be excluded from that scheme, I cannot help thinking, that questions of difficulty would arise which it would be very disastrous to this country to excite. I should, therefore, be inclined to put it that no system, will be satisfactory which does not preserve for India the advantages which she has gained under her present free trade system.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, like the two noble Earls who have addressed your Lordships this evening, I have had the great privilege of being connected for a time with the administration of Indian affairs, and I realise as deeply as they do the immense importance of dealing with this subject in the most cautious spirit. I think I am justified in assuming that the noble Earl who spoke first introduced it to your Lordships mainly with the idea of eliciting from His Majesty's Government a statement of the procedure which they proposed to follow in so far as the inquiry to which we are committed will deal with India. I can hardly believe that he seriously expected that so soon after our announcement that an inquiry was to take place we should come down to this House and inform your Lordships of the results which that inquiry is likely to have; nor, I think, can the noble Earl have seriously believed that we should leave India altogether out of account. I understand the noble Earl to have been perturbed by the fact that the Colonial Secretary, in certain speeches which he has lately delivered, made no reference to the case of India. I suggest to the noble Earl an explanation of that fact. It is not a very profound one; but it seems to me obvious. It is that Mr. Chamberlain holds the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, and not that of Secretary of State for India; and that, as this question has been brought to his attention in his official capacity, and more particularly by the proceedings of the two great Colonial

  289
  Conferences, it was natural that he should deal with it as a colonial question, and that when he spoke of the effect of his proposals upon the Empire he should have had in his mind more especially the Colonial Empire of Great Britain.
  Now, my Lords, the noble Earl asks us to tell him whether there is a plan for India. The object of the inquiry and the discussion which we have invited, and to which we have had important contributions this evening, is to determine whether a plan can be discovered and to what parts of the Empire that plan should be applied. But the noble Earl assumed throughout his argument that there was a plan, and that the plan had been applied to India; and he gave a very alarming description of the disastrous consequences which such a policy would be likely to involve. I think it will be time to dwell upon any untoward effects which a change might produce when we have determined what our plan is to be, and when we have determined whether India is to be included within its scope. But when I come to the other question of the noble Earl, whether India is to be included within the scope of the inquiry, there, I think, his request for information is a most legitimate one; and I answer unhesitatingly that India certainly does come within the scope of the investigation. And I say more. It is not, to my mind, conceivable that any Government should be found ready in dealing with such a problem to ignore the case of India or even to contemplate the possibility of imposing on India a new fiscal system unsuited to her requirements and repugnant to the feelings of the Government and the people of that country.
  With regard to the statements of the two noble Earls, I listened attentively to them, and so far as I was able to follow them, I do not think that I have any reason to differ from the description which they gave of the present fiscal arrangements of India and of their results. I readily, for example, admit the marked contrast that exists between the fiscal systems of India and of the great colonies. The colonial tariff systems are frankly protective. They are designed for the purpose of sheltering domestic industries from external competition. The Indian tariff, on the
  290
  other hand, is, as has been truly said, a purely revenue tariff; and I therefore freely admit that, so far as the present situation is concerned, India is not in a good position either to give preferences to her friends nor to retaliate upon those who treat her in an unfriendly manner. Then I readily admit what has been said as to the immense importance of the export trade of India. That trade is largely carried on with foreign countries, and it is essential to India that that trade should be afforded the most favourable and most unrestricted outlets possible.
  My Lords, we also have to consider not only the interests of India, but the interests of this country as the great creditor of India. The greater part of the debt of India is, I believe, held in this country, and India, if I remember aright, has to remit on account of home charges £17,000,000 sterling per annum. It is perfectly clear that the weight of these heavy obligations falls very largely upon the export trade, the importance of which has been so well described. And not only that, but as the noble Earl told your Lordships, India is a very large customer of this country; I believe it is true that she takes from us imports exceeding in value the whole of the imports of the self-governing colonies, and those imports are no doubt paid for by India out of her gains in respect of the export trade, so that, if we in any way diminish her receipts from her export trade, we diminish her power of buying from us the commodities which she now takes from this country. All these are to my mind obvious propositions, and I need not say they are matters which His Majesty's Government will have to take into their most careful consideration.
  I have listened with the utmost sympathy to what the noble Earl said as to the necessity of considering not only the commercial and economic effects of changes of this kind, but also the possible political effects of an alteration in the fiscal system of India. The noble Earl did me the honour of quoting at length from a speech I delivered in this House in 1894. We are sometimes a little dismayed when we are confronted with our bygone efforts of eloquence, but I confess that the passages which the

  291
  noble Earl quoted did not contain a single word which I now desire to retract. I rather welcome the appeal which has been made to political as distinguished from purely economic considerations, because we too in laying our case before the public have had also to appeal to considerations of the same kind. It is a part of our argument also that it is necessary to inquire into these great questions, and to do so with an open mind, because, for political reasons, if we refuse to do so we shall alienate and offend those great self-governing colonies who have on so many occasions earnestly entreated us to take their requests into our consideration. I am therefore perfectly willing to accept the proposition that these questions cannot be dealt with one conomic grounds alone.
  Pending the result of the investigation to which we are committed, it is of course impossible for us to answer by anticipation the problems which have been put before us this evening The noble Earl says to us: "India already treats you so liberally that supposing you hereafter decide to give preferential treatment to your colonies you ought to give that preference to India without any further concession on her part." That is an argument which no doubt will have to be considered at the proper time, but how far it will prevail I cannot undertake to say this evening. I may say in passing that I heard with interest what the noble Earl said with regard to the export of wheat from India. My impression is that the amount of wheat available for export from India depends really not so much upon the amount of wheat produced as upon the amount of other food grains available for consumption. If the harvest of these food grains is abundant, the wheat is not required for home consumption, and my impression is that a large quantity of Indian wheat will in any circumstances be at times available for export, and that an import duty levied here would probably not have very much effect one way or the other upon the amount exported from India. I give the figures from memory, but I think I am right in saying that in 1898 we took from India wheat to the value of about £3,500,000; in 1900 we took virtually
  292
  none at all, and in 1901 we again took something like £3,000,000. Those figures, I think, show that the fluctuations in the export of wheat are due to causes of the kind indicated by Lord Elgin.
  With regard to the Indian case, I think I am justified in saying that no part of the inquiry is less likely to suffer from want of ample expert evidence or of due presentation of the facts. We have in this country a Secretary of State with his Council, and we have in India a Viceroy with his Council. On these Councils there are men of high position, of wide experience, and absolutely independent character, many of them men who have had close and intimate acquaintance with all parts of the Indian Empire, and it seems to me evident that the criticisms and suggestions which we are likely to obtain from such men will form the most valuable testimony which it would be possible for us to procure. The noble Earl on the cross benches the other evening expressed his opinion that this inquiry might well have been entrusted to a Royal Commission. I cannot bring myself to believe that any Royal Commission would be likely to produce with regard to India evidence so conclusive and trustworthy as the evidence which will be procurable from the two great Councils to which I referred a moment ago.
  I certainly say in reply to the noble Earl that the Government of India will be fully consulted in regard to this question. We shall consider at the proper time in what form and to what extent the results of that consultation might be made public. But I make this general statement—and I am glad to make it—that our policy is not to conduct this inquiry in a hole-and-corner fashion, but to give the public the facts, the statistics, the information upon which we shall ourselves rely in forming our own judgment; and I say that not only in regard to the case of India, but in regard to all the subjects to which the inquiry will have reference. I make this further remark—that we shall gladly welcome any assistance which we may receive from your Lordships or any

  293
  other quarters in suggesting information and evidence which might be usefully elicited. I notice from the Paper that Motions are to be made for Papers bearing on this subject. So far as our opportunities permit we shall gladly place your Lordships in possession of any evidence which can be conveniently procured upon this most important matter.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, the noble Marquess has not thrown the smallest light upon that great mystery, the inquiry which is going on, we understand, under circumstances unknown to us, and which is alluded to continually by His Majesty's Government, but about which we receive, whenever they speak, no further information whatever. I gather from the conclusion of the noble Marquess's speech that the function of those in this House who are not connected with His Majesty's Government is considered by the Government to be to give them information as to the points upon which they are to direct inquiry. That is a function from which we do not at all shrink, and when I remember how frequent have been the discussions in this House on this question, and how many have been the efforts made to get some more explicit information with respect to this inquiry than we have yet received, I feel that the part allotted to us may be a useful part, but that it would be much more useful if the points submitted and the inquiries made were, thought worthy of answer by His Majesty's Government. However, that is not to be the case. We must accept the position which is offered to us, and do what we can in this House, where we have more liberty than in the other House, in which I do not observe on the part of His Majesty's Government that extreme desire to receive information, or to raise debates on this question, which happily exists in the more generous minds of the Members of His Majesty's Government who sit on the Front Bench opposite.
  Having also had the honour of filling for several years the office of Viceroy of India, I feel bound to add my support to the remarks of the two noble Earls in regard to this question, which is one of vital importance to India. I feel
  294
  that the Government are bound to deal with India upon the same principle as that on which they intend to deal with the other parts of His Majesty's dominions. They cannot give preferences to the self-governing colonies without considering the extent of the claims which India may have to preferences on her side. I do not think it has been touched upon hitherto in this discussion, but there is one point in regard to the matter of colonial preferences which is of great importance, as it relates to India. If you are going to give, as Mr. Chamberlain—who is the only Member of His Majesty's Government who is not wrapped up in mystery, unless, perhaps, I include on the other side the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is frank enough in his statements—if, as Mr. Chamberlain proposes, you are going to give a preference to the imports from the self-governing colonies, and especially from Canada, if you are to give a preference to Canada and to Canadian wheat and do not give the same preference to Indian wheat, you will be protecting Canada against India. You will be giving Canada an advantage in regard to the import of wheat into this country which you do not give to India. I do not suppose that His Majesty's Government will do that, but that would inevitably be the result if you were to give a preference to the self-governing colonies and not to India.
  This change of policy involves very grave considerations in regard to India. As has been said over and over again in this discussion, India has a free trade tariff. She was, when she had the tariff which was prepared for her by my noble friend Lord Cromer, the most free trade country, I believe, in the world. Some revenue duties have been put upon her since from the necessities of famine and other grounds, but at that time she was the most free trade country in the world. It is a great mistake for anybody to think that the natives of India—I will go further and say the European inhabitants of India, speaking generally—arc in favour of free trade. Their views on that subject are very similar to those that prevail in our colonies. How was it that my noble friend who opened this discussion and myself, and, I think, Lord

  295
  Elgin, met the charge which was freely brought against us that in establishing this free trade policy in India we were trying solely to help British manufacturers and were acting on a selfish principle? Our answer was this, that if we thought this free trade policy would do harm to India, if we thought that it would inflict injury upon India in any way, we would not be a party to it. That certainly was the language which I held. I said—
  "The policy of England is free trade. We firmly believe in the justice and in the advantage of free trade, and I support these proposals because I believe that they will confer great and valuable benefit upon India itself."
  And that has been the result. You have had figures put before you this evening showing what has been the result of free trade. But if that policy is now to be abandoned in this country, if we are to have preferential tariffs on the one hand and retaliatory duties on the other, we destroy that argument. We can no longer say to the natives and to the people of India: "We advocate a free trade tariff for you because we believe it to be the best tariff for any country, and because we have it in our own country." If we abandon that policy, how are we going to meet that argument in India? You must recollect, my Lords, that the sources of revenue in India are exceedingly limited. Both of my noble friends, like myself, spent a good deal of time in trying to discover new sources of revenue, but they apparently were not more successful than I was in ascertaining whence to get that revenue. Expenditure increases in India. By the changes which have recently been made in regard to military organisation, a sum of nearly £800,000 a year has been placed on the finances of India. How will you meet those charges? India will say—"We wish to meet them by tariff arrangements. We wish to meet them by import duties." Will you have the face, when you have abolished free trade, to refuse to allow India to do that which you allow all your colonics to do—not because free trade is the policy of this country, not because you consider it to be the best policy, and heartily believe in it, but because it suits your own convenience? You cannot do that. The position is not possible. My noble friend Lord Elgin will confirm me when I say that the Excise duties on cotton created very serious difficulty and a good deal of bitter
  296
  feeling and misunderstanding as to the objects and desires of this country. They were carried because they were based on sound principles of free trade. Once abandon those principles in regard to India, and you cannot maintain those Excise duties and refuse to India that which you allow to all your self governing colonies.
  Under Mr. Chamberlain's scheme those colonies are not to give up their protective duties against British goods. What is the method to be pursued? In Canada itself, when preference was first given to us, an increased duty was put upon goods coming from other countries, and we have heard from Australia, and especially from New Zealand—whence a loud voice is heard over the sea from time to time telling us what we ought to do—that the preference that is to be given to us is not to be in the shape of reduced duties on our goods, but increased duties against other countries. I do not for a moment suggest that we should object to their doing this. But I say that if we abandon the free trade ground, we can scarcely resist the claims of India to impose duties on British manufactures. It is one of the unfortunate circumstances of the extraordinary position in which this country stands at the present time upon this question that all sorts of indefinite hopes, aspirations, and beliefs are being raised in every direction, in consequence of the vagueness of the statements which are made by His Majesty's Government, and now we are told that we are to wait till 6th October to be enlightened further on this question. But we are not told when the reply to the 6th of October statement is to be made, and therefore the country will not get full light on the subject even then.
  Just look at the consequences of raising these vague and uncertain discussions. I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Emmott, M.P., which appeared in yesterday's Times, and in which he gives an extract from the Indian Textile Journal to the following effect. It is headed "Inter-Colonial Free Trade"—
  "The scheme is full of golden promise for this country. Her cotton industry needs the stimulus to its development which such a fiscal arrangement would give. The free circulation of Indian and Egyptian cotton throughout the world, with a tariff charge against American products, would at once

  297
  restore to India the great wave of prosperity which she enjoyed in 1861–65, during the period of the American Civil War."
  There is more to that effect. It is grievous to think that notions of that kind are to be raised in the minds of the natives of India. I am convinced, as my noble friend said who preceded me, that there is great and serious political danger in raising up hopes of that kind if they are not to be fulfilled and in encouraging the idea that we are about to abandon the free trade policy in order to adopt a policy of protection, in which case I think we should be bound to relieve India from the obligation under which she now rests, of admitting our products on reasonable terms. I venture to assure your Lordships that the difficulties and the dangers of this question are great indeed, and that it is most desirable, nay, imperative, that something should be done to make more clear and explicit to the natives of India at least, the extent of the policy upon which we are about to embark. If you do not do that you will run the greatest risks. I was sorry to hear the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs say that the Government of India will be consulted upon this question. I had hoped that the Government of India had already been consulted. It is no use to tell us that Mr. Chamberlain is Secretary of State for the Colonies and that therefore he cannot pay any attention to Indian affairs. If one of His Majesty's Ministers is prepared to propose to the country an entirely new fiscal system, I say that it is his bounden duty, before he makes that proposal, to study it all round.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I only rise to ask one Question of the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council or of the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister. I was gratified to hear that the full information which is going to be collected by His Majesty's Government will be placed I before the public. I think the declaration of my noble friend was perfectly clear and explicit on that point, the most explicit statement we have yet had. I would only further inquire, without asking the Government to give an absolute date, when there will be a probability of the information being placed in our hands? Is there
  298
  any chance of the information being forthcoming before the beginning of October? I think it is extremely desirable that both, sides should be equally well equipped for argument, and later the controversy, with accurate information, and with the necessary materials for conducting the controversy in the country with knowledge and authenticated figures. I am sure my noble friends will feel that it would be unfair to both sides and to the public if a great portion of the information were already in the hands of members of the Government while those who might feel themselves compelled to contest the Government view were still without the bulk of the information. I would press my noble friend for an assurance that, at all events, as soon as possible, the information, even if it is not absolutely complete, will be made public.
  *LORD REAY: My Lords, I wish to endorse the request which has just been made by the noble Viscount opposite. It is undesirable to keep this question open and to allow an immense amount of loose statistics to float about, and thereby whet the appetite for protection which already exists in India, and encourage false hopes which cannot be satisfied. The noble Marquess has invited us to indicate what questions we should like to see placed before the experts in this inquiry. Perhaps, therefore, he will allow me to indicate some of the questions which I think require an answer. If you intend to give a preference to wheat and rice exports from India to this country you reverse thereby the present policy, and in the case of rice, as the noble Marquess knows, you have an export duty of seven shillings a ton on Indian rice. That export duty would undoubtedly have to go if you gave a bounty to export to the United Kingdom. The result of a preferential duty on wheat and rice would be to raise the price to the point at which other countries would be prepared to send their surplus production to the United Kingdom. I would like to ask whether that point will be included in the inquiry.
  I do not know whether it is proposed to give a preferential duty in Hong Kong and in Singapore to rice imported from India. The great advantages which accrue to Singapore from its free trade with Cochin China, Java, and Siam, which also export rice, would be lost in

  299
  that case. A further question arises: If you give a bounty to wheat and rice on export, how will that bounty affect the storage in India of wheat and rice as against recurring famines. We now rely on that storage, but if a bounty is given for export, then that storage may be reduced. Will the inquiry show what compensation you intend to give to the people in India, whose main food is rice, and what expectation you have that in the congested state of the labour market in India there will be a rise of wages? I do not suppose that the introduction of old-age pensions in India is contemplated by any Indian ruler. The Indian agriculturist who grows rice and wheat will reap a benefit from the bounty by the artificial increase in the value of his produce, but the ryot who does not grow wheat and rice will not secure the bounty. Therefore, as between different classes of agriculturists you would create a privileged class. I trust the inquiry will include the question whether it is desirable to create a privileged class of agriculturists in this way. I lay great stress, too, on the point raised by Lord Elgin with regard to the influence of any increase in the price of agricultural produce on the revenue settlements. I can endorse from my own experience my noble friend's contention that there would be very great difficulty in adjusting the land revenue assessments to the artificial rise in price. As the noble Earl who introduced this discussion has shown, with regard to tea you hardly need a preference, because already Indian tea has displaced China tea. But the inquiry will show how a preferential duty in favour of Indian tea will influence the commercial treaty which has lately been made with China, and how it will influence the "open door" policy, which we are trying to obtain from China. The imports from foreign countries into India are either articles which we cannot produce, which we do not manufacture, or which are cheaper elsewhere. What is the object of interfering with those imports and of imperilling the large export trade of India with other countries? As my noble friend Lord Northbrook has shown, no corresponding benefit is likely to arise to our manufactures if we interfere with the trade from India to other countries. The exports to
  300
  France, Germany, the United States, Italy, China, and Japan, exceed the imports of those countries, and that state of things realises already for India what the advocates of protectionist doctrines are always urging, that we should look, not to the volume of the import trade, but to the volume of the export trade. The balance of trade is in favour of India. Therefore in the inquiry it will be desirable to ask what can be gained by upsetting the existing; state of things in India?
  India is in the same position as the United States. It is independent of foreign supplies of fond, and it is in a strong economic position. Hence the only argument in favour of protection is to encourage the industries and manufactures of India itself. But if you dislocate and unsettle the Indian trade by creating preferential duties in its favour here and preferential duties in our favour in India, what reason is there to suppose that that interference will be beneficial to India? The excess of Indian exports is required for the payment of interest on the capital for public works, on the debt of India, on freights, on home charges, and other private remittances to the United Kingdom. Is there anything in the finances of India at the present moment which calls for a change? Those finances, as the last Budget has shown, are in a very prosperous condition. Then, again, we cannot overlook the fact that the purchasing power of the natives of India is very limited, and to refuse them access to the cheapest market seems to me to be an absolute injustice to millions of our fellow subjects in India. Why should they be compelled to purchase in a dearer market I trust that when the inquiry is opened, not only the Council of the Viceroy and the Council of the Secretary of State for India will be heard, but that we shall also obtain the opinions of the Legislative Councils of Calcutta and of the various Provinces. I wish also to ask whether it is intended to take the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce in India? It is of the utmost importance to know what they think of this change in the fiscal policy. Hitherto the rulers of India have not tolerated

  301
  a tariff for other than revenue purposes, and I trust that the inquiry will show which of the rulers of India and those responsible for the fiscal system of India, are in favour of the proposed change.
  The only argument—I wish to be quite fair—which I have heard in favour of protection for India is that it might attract capital. But is such an artificial impulse needed? Cheap labour in India is abundant, and skilled labour you can obtain. To develop the natural resources of the country a steady exchange was required, and that steady exchange you have obtained by recent measures. Manufactured goods have, during recent years, borne an increasing proportion to the raw articles exported from India. Therefore, you have to prove that any further artificial encouragement is necessary. I deeply regret that this controversy should have arisen. Hitherto both Parties have been agreed on what should form the basis of our commercial relations with India. If we unsettle the minds of our Indian fellow subjects we shall only delude them by an experiment which I feel convinced will, if it is tried, destroy the prosperity which has been such a marked feature of the final system under which India has been governed.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I only rise for the purpose of endeavouring to answer the question put by the noble Viscount behind me. The noble Viscount has given me private notice of a Question which he proposes to put to me on this subject next Tuesday, and I will endeavour, as far as I am able, to ascertain before that time how soon it may be within the power of the Government to lay on the Table the Papers which it is their very anxious desire to lay as quickly as possible.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD KENYON: In moving the Third Reading of this Bill I will take the opportunity of answering the Question
  302
  put to me by the Marquess of Ripon last night. My noble friend Lord Balfour was quite correct in the statement he made in reply to the noble Marquess. The object of putting in the saving clause to which attention has been called was this, that in the event of the local authorities succeeding in vetoing the proposed transfer of powers, the Local Government Board should be enabled, if it was found that feeling in the county concerned had changed on the subject, to make a fresh Order.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.