Sitting of 31 July 1903

Preamble
(The House met at Twelve of the Clock.)
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

  1067
  case of the following Bill, 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: Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]—Lords, reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons' Amendments to the Bill considered:—Resolved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed:—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Bath Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified)—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Kip's Patents Bill [Lords];—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords] King's Consent signified)—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords]; Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [Lords], (by Order); South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords], (by Order); Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Irvine and District Water Board Confirmation Bill [Lords]—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Wick and Pulteney Harbours Order Confirmation Bill— Read the third time, and passed.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords]; As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Metropolitan Streets Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No.8) Bill, without Amendment.
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill; South Shields Corporation Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to, Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords]; Barry Railway Bill [Lords]; Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [Lords]; Worthing Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to continue and amend The Light Railways Act, 1896." [Light Railways Bill [Lords.]
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Urban District Council of Willesden to sell their generating station at Willesden to the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company; to confer further powers upon that company; and for other purposes." [North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords.]
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords]. Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITION
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Lerwick, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors on Elementary Schools and Training Colleges for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DIRECTORY OF INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS
  Copy presented, of Directory of Industrial Associations in the United Kingdom in 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT LOAD LINE.
  Copy presented, of Papers showing the action taken by the Board of Trade with regard to certain recommendations made by the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Light Load Line [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure, etc., of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1902 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  BRITISH VESSELS SOLD TO FOREIGNERS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Mr Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. No.298.]
  BRITISH COLONIES (DUTIES ON IMPORTS.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. Alfred Davies]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.299.]
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the President for 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of thirty — ninth Annual Report of the Registrar—General Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1902. Part I. General Report [by Command];
  to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS(ENGLAND)
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1901–2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 300.]
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Copy presented, of Report on the administration and working of Indian Railways, by Thomas Robertson, C.V.O., Special Commissioner for Indian Railways [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.301.]
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account presented, showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage and other Moneys between the 1st April, 1902, and 31st March, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.302.}
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th May; Mr.Goddard;] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBT.)
  Committee to consider of authorising the Remission of a certain Debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present session relating to Local Loans (King's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Employment of Kaffirs on Transvaal Railways.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has approved of a resolution reported to have been passed by the Intercolonial or

  1071
  Railway Extension Council in the Transvaal, on 8th July, limiting the number of Kaffirs to be employed in railway construction to 10,000, and also of the resolution as to the exclusion of Kaffir labour recruited north of Pretoria already announced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The first resolution referred to I have not yet received. With regard to the second resolution my answer to the right hon. Memberon 21st July † referred him to Resolution XII of the Railway Extension Conference, which is to be found at page 87 of Cd. 1552, and is worded as follows—
  "This Conference is of opinion that in the construction of new lines every care should be taken not to impair the labour supply of the mines, and that when any line is given to a contractor it should, if necessary, be made a condition of the contract that no aboriginal natives of South Africa should be employed unless belonging to tribes which are known to be averse to underground labour."
  I see no objection to this resolution, but I am not so far aware that a resolution has been passed for the exclusion of all Kaffir labour recruited north of Pretoria, without reference to its character, in the case of contracts for the railways.

  British Exports to Canada.
  MR. SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of the total imports into Canada came from the United Kingdom in the years 1897 and 1902 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) According to the latest Annual Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce of Canada the percentage of the total imports for consumption of merchandise into Canada from the United Kingdom in the years 1897 to 1902 was as follows:— Year ended 30th June, 1897, 27.58; year ended 30th June, 1898, 25·36; year ended 30th June, 1899, 24·72; year ended 30th June, 1900, 25·66; year ended 30th June, 1901, 24·10; year ended 30th June, 1902, 24·95.

  Staff of Ecclesiastical Commission—Salaries and Pensions.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Com-
  † See (4) Debates cxxv., 1311.
  1072
  missioner, if he will say what is the present staff of the Ecclesiastical Commission; by whom the staff are appointed, and by whom the salaries payable to its-members are determined; and what has been the aggregate amount spent annually by the Commissioners in salaries and pensions respectively during the three years last past.
  (Answered by Mr. Lees Knowles.) Having been a member of the Joint Committee on Queen Anne's Bounty in 1901, the hon. Gentleman doubtless remembers that a complete statement of the numbers and salaries of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' staff was printed as Appendix C to the Report (with Evidence) of that Committee (Parliamentary Paper, No. 174, of session 1901). With the exception that a solicitor has been added at a salary of £400 to do within the office the legal work in connection with the Church Building Acts which was formerly transacted by a firm of solicitors outside, the appointments on the staff are substantially unaltered. Clerks and officials, other than those on the temporary staff, are appointed upon certificates of the Civil Service Commissioners after open competitive examination, except in those few cases in which professional qualifications are required, and it is necessary to take advantage of Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 4 June 1870 relating to appointments in the Civil Service. The numbers and salaries of the various classes of clerks and officials are determined by the Treasury. The amounts spent by the Commissioners in salaries and wages and pensions during their last three financial years have been as follows:—Year ending 31 October 1900, salaries, etc., £24,244 2s. 10d., pensions. £7,330 4s. 11d.; year ending 31 October 1901, salaries, etc., £23,426 4s. 7d., pensions £7,482 7s. 7d.; year ending 31 October 1902, salaries, etc., £23,999 6s. 7d., pensions £8,004 10s. 9d.

  Legal Expenses of Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Mr. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford as Church Estates Commissioner, what were the main items in the legal expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the year 1902.

  1073
  (Answered by Mr.Lees Knowles.) The legal expenses amounting to £10,136 10s appearing in the Common Fund Account of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the year preceding 1 November 1902, were incurred, as to £1,603 16s. 2d. in respect of sales and exchanges of properties, as to £1,085 14s. 8d. in respect of purchases, and as to £7,446 19s. 2d. in respect of church building and various matters (including £2,700 in opposing, in the interests of the Commissioners' Estates, certain Bills in Parliament, of which there were an exceptionally large number in that year), and £2,216 17s. 4d. in costs of litigation with a railway company in respect of questions affecting mineral rights of large pecuniary value.

  Population of Dioceses of Worcester and Birmingham.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is approximately the present population of the diocese of Worcester; and what population it is proposed in the Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham Bill to assign to the bishopric of Birmingham.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) According to the Census Returns for 1901 the population of the diocese of Worcester is 1,398,240. The population of the area proposed to be formed into the new diocese of Birmingham is about 850,000. This number includes about 65,000 persons now in the diocese of Lichfield.

  Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister in British East Africa.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether marriage with the sister or niece of a deceased wife has been recently legalised in the British East African Protectorate; and, if so, upon what grounds this step has been taken.
  (Answered by Lord Granborne). The marriage law prevailing in the Protectorates administered by the Colonial Office was recently adopted as a whole for British East Africa. The provisions to which my right hon. friend refers are, it appears, included in that law, but I
  1074
  was not aware of it until his Question called my attention to the fact.

  Taxation, and Trade of United Kingdom.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount per head of population of Imperial and local taxation respectively, and also of the total value of the trade of the United Kingdom for each of the years 1882 and 1902, excluding taxes raised for the purposes of the war in South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The amount per head of population of Imperial taxation is estimated to have been as follows: 1882–3, £2 1s. 8d; 1902–3 (omitting revenue estimated to have been devoted to war purposes), £2 15s. 11d. The amount of local rates in the United Kingdom per head of population is estimated to have been:—1882–3, 17s. 3d.; 1899–1900 (figures for later year not yet available), £1 3s. 3d. I cannot give any estimate of the total trade (which would of course include the home trade) of the United Kingdom, but the total value of imports and exports per head of population was:—1882, £20 8s. 10d.; 1902, £20 18s. 5d. These last figures are shown for each year in the Statistical Abstract.

  Yield of Income Tax.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT (Exeter): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount which one penny on the Income Tax has brought in in each of the following years—1880, 1890, 1900, and 1902, the figures for each year being corrected to an identical basis.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The actual figures in round thousands have been as follows:—Year to 5th April 1880, £1,846,000; 1890, £2,141,000; 1900, £2,353,000; 1902, £2,531,000. In order to adjust the figures of 1900 and 1902 to the same basis as those of 1880 and 1890, it would be necessary to take into account the amount of income relieved from taxation by the Finance Acts of 1894 and 1898, either by way of exemption or abatement. It is not

  1075
  possible to make any accurate estimate of the amount relieved by way of exemption, I can only say that it has been considerable. But an estimate can be made of the income relieved by way of abatement. The following statement shows the relief allowed in each of the years under the heads referred to:— 1880, 1890, Abatements, £120 on incomes from £150 to £400; 1900, 1902, £160 on incomes exceeding £160 but not exceeding £400; £150 on incomes exceeding £400 but not exceeding £500; £120 on incomes exceeding £500 but not exceeding £600, and £70 on incomes exceeding £600 but not exceeding £700. In respect of repairs: One-eighth of the annual value of "lands," one-sixth of the annual value of "houses." Under these several heads income which would have paid tax in 1880 and 1890 has in 1900 and 1902 been relieved from tax to the following amounts per penny:— 1899–1900, £235,000; 1901–1902, £259,000. Accordingly the actual figures as given above would, if adjusted in respect of abatements, only stand as follows:— Year to 5th April, 1880, £1,846,000; 1890,£2,141,000; 1900, £2,588,000; 1902, £2,790,000. If the additional amount of income relieved by exemption could be calculated, a further substantial addition would be required on the figures of the two later years.

  Comparative Growth of Private Wealth in England, France, and Germany.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give figures bearing upon the comparative growth of private wealth in England, France, and Germany since 1880, as indicated by Income Tax Returns, Death Duty Returns, and similar standards.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) I am afraid there are no statistics in the possession of the Treasury upon which I could venture to frame an estimate of the growth of wealth in France and Germany. As regards the United Kingdom, full statistics for recent years were given in the last Report of the Board of Inland Revenue, and will be continued in their forthcoming Report, as to income and as to the capital value of property passing on death; and it
  1076
  would be possible to give a special Return for the purpose of comparison with the year 1880, or any other year prior to the decennial period covered by the Tables of the Report. But the figures of property passing on death can only be given at the full amount for the period subsequent to the Finance Act, 1894. Prior to that the capital value of real property was not fully disclosed.

  Registration of School Teachers.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will furnish a Return showing how many persons have become registered teachers under Form No.2. T.R.C.' Regulation 5,Section 2A; what was the qualification of each one so registered which, in the opinion of the Council, has qualified the person to be so registered; and how it happens that the students of a training college under Government inspection are registered, but the principals who trained them cannot be so without submitting to an examination.
  (Answered by Sir William. Anson.) The Board are prepared to grant the Return of the persons registered under Regulation 5(2)(a) asked for in the first part of the Question. A person who becomes a student in a training college under Government inspection is not thereby qualified to be placed on the register. The principal of a training college may be placed on the register without examination if he fulfils the conditions of Regulations 4or5 (2).

  Average Prices of Wheat at Chicago and Buenos Ayres.
  COLONEL LONG (Worcestershire, Evesham): To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average price of wheat per quarter taking 500 lbs. to the quarter at Chicago, United States, and Buenos Ayres, Argentina, in 1901 and 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The means of the monthly quotations of the prices of No.1 Northern Spring Wheat at Chicago, as published in the "Crop Reporter" issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, give an annual average for 1901 of 72 1/96 cent. per bushel, and for 1902 of 74 125/192 cent.

  1077
  per bushel. Taking the bushel as equal to 60 lbs., the price of a quarter of 500 lbs. on this basis would have been 25s. in 1901, and 25s. 11d. in 1902. I have no information as to the prices at Buenos Ayres.

  Manufactured Articles Exported from United Kingdom, France and Germany and United States.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the statistics of the total manufactured articles exported from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States of America from 1885 to 1902, corresponding as nearly as possible to the articles enumerated in Class 3 in the summaries of the Trade and Navigation Accounts published by the Board of Trade, showing also the amount per head of the population in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The hon. Member will find such particulars as are available on this subject in the latest issue of the Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries ([Cd.1237] of 1902.)

  Imports of Manufactured Articles.
  MR. REA: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give statistics of the imports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured, imported into, and retained for consumption in the United Kingdom from 1885 to 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Figures of the importation of manufactured and partly manufactured goods into United Kingdom from 1885 to 1902 could be given, but it is unlikely that the home consumption of such goods can he specified.

  Imports of Manufactured Articles into France, Germany, and United States.
  Mr. TOULMIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give statistics of the manufactured articles imported into France, Germany, and the United States of America from 1885 to 1902, corresponding as nearly as possible to the
  1078
  articles enumerated in Class 3in the Summaries of the Trade and Navigation Accounts published by the Board of Trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The hon. Member will find such particulars as are available on this subject in the latest issue of the "Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries" (Cd. 1237, of 1902.)

  Accounts of General Lighthouse Fund.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can arrange for the accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1903, to be laid upon the Table of the House before the end of the session.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The accounts cannot be presented to Parliament until the certificate of the Comptroller and the Auditor—General has been obtained, and this will probably not be received until November.

  Education Act, 1902— Issue of Regulations under Section 23(4)
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when he is likely to issue regulations, under Section 23(4) of the Education Act, 1902, prescribing the mode in which the amount produced by rates under the Act shall be estimated.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have been in communication on this subject with the associations representing the various local authorities concerned. One of these associations have not yet furnished me with their final observations, but I expect to receive them in a day or two. I hope to be in a position to issue the regulations very shortly.

  Rateable Value of England and Wales.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he will state the rateable value of England and Wales in each of the years 1870–1871, 1880–1881, 1890–1891, and 1900–1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It appears from Part I. of the last issued Local Taxation Returns that the rateable

  1079
  value of England and Wales, according to the Poor Rate Valuation, was at the commencement of the years referred to as follows—

  Year 1870–1871

  Rateable Value,

  £104,405.304

  Year 1880–1881

  Rateable Value

  £135,645,473

  Year 1890–1891

  Rateable Value

  £152,116,008

  Year 1900–1901

  Rateable Value

  £180,406,420

  Worsted Trade—Accidents from Flying Shuttles.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the recent frequency of accidents from flying shuttles in the worsted trade in Bradford: and whether he has any official information showing why the precautions which have reduced the frequency of flying shuttle accidents in Lancashire appear not yet to have had that effect on certain branches of the worsted trade; and what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) There have been eighteen shuttle accidents this year in the worsted trade in the Bradford district; all, happily, as I understand, of a slight character. I am aware that this number indicates a considerable increase on last year: but the figures are apt to fluctuate considerably. Moreover, though all the shuttles in the worsted-weaving districts are well guarded with guards similar to those used in the cotton districts, the differences in the material under manufacture render it difficult to make the guards equally effective. The matter will continue to receive the attention of the inspectors.

  Sale of Addington Park.
  Mr. MOON: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, what was the amount which came to the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from the sale of Addington, and what was the amount applied in providing an Archiepiscopal Palace at Canterbury.
  (Answered by Mr Lees Knowles.) As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was informed, in reply to a Question put by him on the 4th June last year,†.Addington Park was sold for £45,000.
  †See (4) Debates, cviii., 1397.
  1080
  With the addition of the amount (£2,371 7s.) paid over by the Archbishop in respect of dilapidations accrued before the sale the total proceeds coming into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was £47,371 7s.which was reduced to £46,006 18s. 11d. by the discharge of a small mortgage created in respect of certain improvements at Addington. The cost of the site for the new Archiepiscopal Palace at Canterbury and the erection of the building has been £29,176 11s.1d.

  Pace of Motor Mails.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Postmaster-General if instructions will be given to drivers of motor mails to drive at a reasonable pace, especially round corners and across pavements.
  (Answered By Austen chamberlain.) The drivers of motor-mail vans in London have been cautioned in the sense desired by the hon. Member.

  Increments for Postal Knowledge—Case of Telegraphist at Shrewsbury.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why a telegraphist at Shrewsbury has been. refused the increment for postal knowledge, in view of the fact that his ease is similar to that of other telegraphists appointed at amalgamated offices and transferred to Shrewsbury, and that four other clerks have had this increment.
  (Answered by Mr. Austesn Chamberlain.) If the hon. Member will furnish the name of the officer to whom he refers I will inquire about the matter.

  Spiddal (Connemara) Petty Sessions— Attendance of Magistrates.
  Mr O 'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how often within the last two years were the Spiddal (Connemara) Petty Sessions adjourned owing to the fact that there were no magistrates in attendance; and whether in view of the inconvenience to the public of these adjournments, he will consider the advisability of appointing local justices who will attendance; the Petty Sessions Courts.

  1081
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Petty Sessions at Spiddal lapsed on two occasions during the past two years owing to the non-attendance of jusices. Applications for appointment to the commission of the peace should he addressed to the Lieutenant of the county.

  Case of Ellen Madigan.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the circumstances under which an old woman of eighty-three years of age, of the name of Ellen Madigan, is now in Limerick Prison; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr.Wyndham.) The committal of Mrs. Madigan, whose age is eighty years, was for contempt of Court on a writ of attachment issued by the Vice-Chancellor. The contempt consisted in her failure as administratrix of the will of John Madigan to render an account of her dealings with the estate. The matter is not one in which the Executive can intervene.

  Belturbet Urban Council—Surcharge of Rent Collector Thomas Dolan.
  MR.J.P.FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of rent collector Thomas Dolan, of Belturbet Urban Council, who has been surcharged by the Local Government auditor in the sum of £206 14s.; whether he is aware that no reasons have been given for this surcharge, and that Mr. Dolan has been for over thirty years the collector of rents in the township, during which no charge has ever been brought against him; and, seeing that the auditor gave the collector no opportunity for defence, and that Mr. Dolan has now lodged over £200 of arrears of rents, and having regard to his circumstances, whether the Local Government Board will allow him personally to appear before them in support of an appeal for its remission.
  (Answered by Mr Wyndham.) My right hon. friend the Attorney-General replied to a similar Question by the hon. Member on the 21st instant. He†
  † (4) Debates, cxxv., 1318.
  1082
  pointed out that the order of the Local Government Board confirming this surcharge was the subject of proceedings in the King's Bench Division, and that in these circumstances the matter cannot be further discussed at present.

  Increase of Police Force at Leixlip.
  MR.LEAMY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the police force in Leixlip has been increased by four men; and, if so, why, and on whom will the additional expense fall.
  (Answered by Mr.Wyndham.) There has been no permanent addition to the local force. The cost of the four men, who have now returned to their stations, will be paid from the Constabulary Vote.

  Area of Ground and Duration of September Manœuvres.
  Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSETo ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can give any information as to the area of the manœuvre ground in September, giving the extreme points east and west, the numbers of troops to be employed, and the duration of the operations.
  (Answered by Secretary Brodrick.) The area of the manœuvre ground comprises all Oxfordshire and Berkshire, Hampshire, excluding the New Forest and the Isle of Wight, and the northern portion of Wiltshire, thus lying between, Windsor on the east, Bradford-on-Avon on the west, Banbury on the north, and Portsmouth on the south. The troops will be taken from the 1st and 2nd Army Corps. The operations will he for the period of a week, and will probably begin on 6th September.

  Cotton Trade and Fiscal Reform.
  Sir WILLIAM HOLLAND: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed at the recent joint conference of the Cotton Employers Parliamentary Association and the United Textile Factory Operatives Association, in which the conference expressed its conviction that the cotton industry of the United

  1083
  Kingdom owed its pre-eminence to the policy of free trade and pledged itself to resist proposals to impose taxes upon food or raw materials; and whether, in view of the importance of this industry in Lancashire and of the number of persons involved in it, the Government will, in the course of their inquiry into our fiscal system, take evidence upon its position.and requirements from those who are engaged in it as employers and operatives.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I have seen the resolution referred to. I have nothing to add to the answers I have given in reference to the inclusion or the exclusion of particular subjects of the inquiry. Of course any observations from the persons named in the Question will be carefully considered.

  Transfer of Crown Land to Lord Penrhyn.
  Mr. LEVY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a statement made by the legal.adviser of Lord Penrhyn at the Bangor Police Court a few days since, to the effect that in 1858 the Crown transferred to Lord Penrhyn, in the vicinity of Bethesda, 6,129 acres of what has always been regarded as common land; if so, can he state whether such land was the property of the Crown; if so, under what circumstances and for what consideration the transfer was made; whether any conditions as to minerals were imposed; and if he will cause a copy of the transfer deed to he placed in the Library of the House for reference.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Colonel Pennant, to whom the sale in 1858 was made, was lessee of the Crown lordship of Uchaf under a lease granted in 1817, which came to an end about 1862. The waste land in question was considered to form part of that lordship. The Commissioners of Woods of that day seem to have considered it desirable to sell the Crown right of soil for the purpose of procuring a considerable sum of money for what was, in their opinion, valueless to the Crown. They considered the minerals might turn out to be of value, and there had been disputes about the Crown's rights in the various parts of the lordship of Uchaf and as to encroachments.
  1084
  The sale had the effect of putting the Crown's title to the minerals beyond controversy or risk of encroachment. It is unusual to publish copies of title deeds such as the conveyance of 1858, but any application for leave to see a copy of it at the Office of Woods will be duly considered.

IRISH DEVELOPMENT GRANT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J W LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1—
Amendment proposed —
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the words 'shall be,' to end of line 6, and insert the words paid out of money to lie provided by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Amendment now proposed completely changed the character of the Bill. As originally introduced it was open to the gravest constitutional and financial objections, but certainly the major part of thoseobjections would now be removed. Instead of being placed as a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund, and withdrawn from the control of Parliament, the grant was now to be placed on the Estimates. To enable that to be done an Act of Parliament was not required in the natural course of things, and he assumed the necessity in this case was due to the framework of the Land Bill. But while the Bill was less objectionable than before, it now made an addition to a series of Estimates which was open to serous criticism. It introduced, in fact, a large new grant-in-aid. Grants-in-aid, when small and for specific purposes, such as those for the National Gallery and certain scientific societies, were not very objectionable; they afforded a convenient method of granting public money. But of late years they had enormously increased, notwithstanding the protests of the Public

1085
Accounts Committee and the recommendations of the Treasury. Last year the grants-in-aid amounted to £3,600,000, and in addition to that there was £4,000,000 for the Transvaal. The objection to the system was that the money was withdrawn from all the safeguards provided by practice and the Constitution, and handed over to a Department or an individual, without any question being asked, to be expended practically without control. He regretted the Chief Secretary had found it necessary to resort to this form of Estimate, but he acknowledged the readiness with which the right hon. Gentleman had entertained the objections held to the original form of the Bill.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD-LIEUTENANT 0E IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)said the circumstances of Ireland were peculiar, and unless recourse were had either to a charge on the Consolidated Fund—the method which he had abandoned—or to a grant-in-aid, Ireland would suffer, and suffer gravely. Last year a large sum was allocated in England to purposes which in that country were ripe for assistance, and, unless an equivalent was secured, Ireland would for some years lose aid which was timely, and indeed overdue. It was, in the first place, to protect Ireland from that loss, a loss which in past years she had frequently had to suffer, that he had felt it his duty to recommend the Committee to adopt a fiscal method which, he admitted, was peculiar, but which was essential in the peculiar needs and necessities of Ireland.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought it a good thing for Ireland that the Chief Secretary had introduced this Bill, because, although as the money was to be placed on the Estimates the measure was not in one sense necessary, yet it made it clear for all time that Ireland was entitled to this grant, whereas if the Bill were not in existence Ireland would probably in the future, as had happened in the past, be done out of a great deal of the money to which she was justly entitled. The Amendment now moved undoubtedly carried out the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman and
1086
gave to the Irish Members a voice in the allocation of the money, and at the same time made it perfectly clear that if the total sum was not expended in any year the unexpended balances would accumulate, and be safeguarded for Irish purposes.
MR.T.W.RUSSELLsaid that the Bill marked a new departure, but so far from objecting to it he desired to see it carried further. In the proposal he detected the germ of an Irish Exchequer—the reservation of Irish money for Irish purposes. The only drawback was that it placed in the hands of Dublin Castle a purse into which the Irish Government could dip for any purpose they chose. However, he had weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme, and he thought the former certainly outweighed the latter.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONthoroughly sympathised with the remarks of the hon. Member for King's Lynn with regard to grants-in-aid: they constituted a most inconvenient and objectionable form of giving public money. As to the proposal in the Bill, if money was to be given and set apart in this way for Irish purposes, it would be necessary to give Ireland a governing body to decide how-the money should be spent. The continuation of this policy must end in Home Rule.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his attention to the general system of grants-in-aid.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)said he entirely sympathised with the view expressed by the Treasury that grants-in-aid ought to be carefully watched, and made only for specific objects. This particular case, however, was very exceptional, and it would only lead to gross extravagance if the authorities were compelled to spend the whole of the money within the year. It was really in the interests of economy, though he quite admitted it was a considerable departure from the usual practice.
Question put, and negatived.
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the clause," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of any Act of the present session relating to Irish land purchase.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that whatever might be said about Trinity College there could only be one feeling in regard to the congested districts.
MR. KILBRIDEpointed,out that in the case of Scotland, as the number of children attending school increased the amount of the equivalent grant would also increase. Accordingly, he was not so sure that by the present grant Ireland was being treated fairly, and Irish children would be worse off than Scotch children, because this Bill stereotyped the sum at £185,000 per annum. If the number of children attending school in Ireland increased, they would consequently get less per child instead of more, as was the case in this country. If his contention showed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any inequality of treatment, he hoped it would induce the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, to put the matter right before the Bill was passed, and thus secure that Irish children would not be placed at any disadvantage.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that tins point also related to Scotland. England got the grant under the Act of last year, and it was based upon so much per child. Consequently, it would increase every year if the number of children attending school increased. He thought that on this principle Ireland ought to have her grant arranged to increase automatically like England, and provision should be made to accomplish this. Otherwise next year they would have a larger sum while Ireland would be limited to the stereotyped amount of £185,000. This inequality would be sure to give rise to a discussion on the Estimates every year. He thought it would be a great mistake now to put Ireland in an inferior position. When they were drawing the money out of the
1088
Consolidated Fund, and applying it to certain purposes, he could understand that something might be said in favour of a fixed amount instead of a variable sum, but now that they had brought the matter into the Estimates there was no reason why Ireland should not have her share, more especially as they were now allocating the money by Act of Parliament. They would have a balance for Irish purposes, and whatever amount they had it should be an equivalent to that of England and Scotland. The matter should be put before the Committee now instead of waiting till next year. Ireland, was getting this money not as a matter of compromise but as an equivalent in regard to population, and she was receiving a specific sum arrived at upon a specific basis.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the observations made by the two hon. Members who had last addressed the Committee showed that there might be reason to object to the principle upon which this grant was being made. He confessed that ever since he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he always had a very strong objection to the system of equivalent grants, because when they had made a grant for a certain purpose to England they were obliged to make proportionate grants to Ireland and Scotland, quite irrespective of whether they needed them or not. Therefore, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when they increased the payment for primary educational purposes in England, by a grant-in-aid of voluntary schools and other schools, he declined to treat it on the basis of equivalent grants to Scotland and Ireland, but he agreed to devote certain sums to various purposes, for which money was required, in Scotland and Ireland, those purposes not being necessarily educational, but purposes for which money was required. He was sorry that the Government had not dealt with this matter in the same way. Indeed there was a pledge given to both Ireland and Scotland on account of the large grants made last year for primary education in England. That relieved the voluntary subscribers or the ratepayers in England of a liability which previously had been imposed upon them; but it did not follow to his mind that a precisely similar grant for a precisely similar

1089
purpose should be made to Scotland or Ireland, either on the old basis of 80, 11, and 9, or on the basis of population, which was a new basis altogether. What he should have liked to have seen done would have been this: Seeing that a grant was made last session to England, the educational necessity of Ireland and Scotland should also have been considered, and money proposed in the ordinary Estimates in order to meet such necessities. He had seen something of Irish education, and to tell him that no more money was required for the purposes of primary education in Ireland was to tell him what he did not believe. What had happened in this matter? For many years past a large proportion of the salaries of the elementary teachers in England had been met either by private subscriptions or from the rates. The effect of the Act of last session was that a considerable proportion of that sum would in future be met by Parliamentary grants. What had happened Ireland? For years and years past complaint had been made that the teachers in Ireland were insufficiently paid. What had been the answer? Simply this: "If so, you ought to find more for the payment of teachers from local sources, as done in England and Scotland." Now that England had been relieved Ireland should be relieved also, by securing the better payment and education of teachers. That would have been the way in which he would have liked to have seen this matter dealt with, but the Government had coupled this question, which was purely educational, with a question to which it did not belong— the cost of the Irish Land Bill of this session. So far as regarded a portion of this grant, which was proposed as a grant-in-aid of the Irish Land Bill, that was a flea-bite upon the Exchequer as compared with the large sum which would have to be found by the taxpayers of the country, no doubt with the goodwill of the House towards the carrying out of that Bill. Whatever his right hon. friend expected to get out of this £185,000 for the purposes of the Land Bill, he very much wished that he had dealt with the cost of the Bill in the Bill itself, leaving this money entirely alone. He did not wish to oppose the Motion the Government had made. He would only say that he regretted that two things which appeared to him
1090
entirely different had been mixed up in this way, and he hoped that the House and the Government would not consider that all the needs of elementary education in Ireland had been met, and that nothing more would be required in future.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid his right hon. friend spoke with very high authority and very great weight upon the question they were now discussing. He was well aware of his right hon. friend's objections to the principle of equivalent grants, and he had hoped that in a measure, if not altogether, he had met some of those objections by the very devices which had been adopted in the Bill. The great objection to the equivalent grant was that it was proper to spend money in England for a particular purpose, and therefore the Government were asked to spend money for the same purpose in Ireland, whether it was proper to spend money for such a purpose or not. If he were to take the suggestion of his right hon. friend, that a more proper course would have been to have voted on the Estimates this year whatever sum could wisely and properly be expended on primary education in Ireland, he must say that he could not have been responsible for framing such Estimates without almost the certainty of being guilty of extravagance. It was not quite so simple a matter as his right hon. friend appeared to think. He suggested that the whole, or at any rate a great part of the legitimate set-off to Ireland, could have been allocated to increasing the salaries or providing pensions for national teachers. But recently a change had been made in the position of the national teachers of Ireland. He did not mean to say that they were satisfied—no body of public servants were satisfied—with the terms they received, but their position had been improved of recent years. The new system under which they were paid was on its trial, and he believed that in the long run it would be found satisfactory. He should have considered it an act of extravagance to have hastily given this money to the national teachers of Ireland. There were many other points in the education of Ireland which deserved attention quite as much as the national teachers. He had said before, and he said it now, that Ireland did not need perhaps precisely the same kind of education as was properly given in

1091
England and Scotland—countries embracing so many industrial centres. The system of education in Ireland, and the financial basis on which it rested, was entirely different from the system in England. In Ireland the Government already gave the capitation grant in respect of all children, and the aid from the localities was almost non-existent.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he did not mean to imply that any grant to Ireland should necessarily have been confined to increasing the salaries of teachers. What he did suggest was that the grant should have been confined to educational purposes, and that the Land Bill should not have been mixed up with it.
MR. WYNDHAMassured his right hon. friend that if he could have got the money required under the Land Bill without coming on this grant, no one would have been more pleased than himself, but that was outside the bounds of practical politics. The general sense of the House was that, in view of the great expenditure on English education, the legitimate claims of Ireland would have to be considered. If Ireland desired land purchase so much—well, that must he considered her particular and imminent claim; there might be no good in a grant in respect of education at all until the need had been shown, and until it had been proved that the money could he wisely and economically expended. He was not in a position to say that be would go bail for the economical expenditure of the money if now placed on the Estimates for Irish education. English education stood in need of further financial assistance; but looking at the position of Irish education—to a great extent owing to the practice hitherto pursued—on the last occasion, when it was felt right to give a large equivalent to Ireland to be devoted to education, Irish education was so backward that it was not ready to receive it. England had local government ten years before Ireland, and it was easy to develop technical instruction under the auspices of the locally-elected bodies, so that Ireland, in order to get a set-off on that occasion, got the large sum of £60,000, which was handed over to intermediate education. It was admitted by those who administered these grants, and it was a matter of common knowledge, that they had more money than they knew what to do with.
1092
With all these complications before one, and knowing the necessity of economical administration, he felt that Ireland must either lose the money or that the money must be handed out imprudently, and in a way that would give no gain to Ireland. It was for these reasons that this Bill was brought in in its present shape. The argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark contained two assumptions. The first was that education in Ireland was parallel in all particulars with that of Scotland; and the second that the population was increasing in the same way. He much regretted that that was not so, though he hoped that some day it might be the case. So long as the population was stationary or decreasing it was necessary to get the money down by Act of Parliament instead of getting it year by year.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the question how this money should be spent in Ireland. He was sure there was not a single Irish Member who would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the need of further expenditure in Ireland. He understood that what they were doing now was not at all to decide how the money should be spent in Ireland, but whether it should be set aside for Irish purposes. Everyone agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very much better if this comparatively small fund had not been trenched upon at all for the purpose of land purchase. But in this, as in other matters, they could not have everything their own way, and they recognised that the Chief Secretary and the Government had been obliged in this matter to make a certain amount of compromise and to have part of this fund set aside for the purposes of the Land Act. With regard to the rest of the money, £110,000 would be available for Irish purposes. He personally would not say that there was any great necessity for the expenditure of every shilling of that amount on primary education, but when they came to decide on the Estimates how the money was to be spent that would be the time, as he understood, to put forward their views as to whether it should all go to educational matters or whether some of it should be used for other purposes. At

1093
present, what they were securing was that Ireland should not be done out of what she was entitled to. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the great need for the expenditure of money in Ireland. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the first person to agree with the Chief Secretary that Ireland had not always been properly dealt with. If they were to go on the old system of simply giving to Ireland an equivalent grant which could be spent for some purpose, Ireland might not be ready for that expenditure, and the result would be that she would lose it every year, or until she was ready to spend it on education. They were now securing for Ireland £185,000 a year beyond all question or doubt. How that was to be spent, apart from the purposes of the Land Act, would be an open question for future discussion.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. DELANYmoved an Amendment, the object of which was, he said, to enlarge the scope of the measure so as to enable the diversion of a small portion of the grant to works of arterial drainage. He had time after time called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the question of the River Barrow, and to the necessity for drainage operations in connection with it, and he therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would avail himself of this opportunity to have the matter attended to.
Amendment proposed—
"After the word 'Development' to insert the words 'Arterial Drainage.'"—(Mr.Delany.)
Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the Bill."
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that it would be inconvenient for the Committee to discuss every single proposition which could be brought forward for the application of this grant. He had used the widest possible Words in declaring that it should be devoted to the improvement of the economic conditions of the country, and he ventured to point out that arterial drainage was one of those economic conditions.
MR.LEAMYsaid he thought his hon. friend had done quite right in bringing this matter forward. They were sick of appealing to the House and to the Irish Government on the question of arterial drainage.
MR T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was as anxious as anyone about arterial drainage, and he might mention the case of the drainage of the Bann as a very pressing need in the north of Ireland, but he wished to utter a caution against loading the Development Grant with works of that kind. The whole problem of arterial drainage, including the Bann, would have to be dealt with, and it would require a very large expenditure indeed. A great deal of money had already been sunk in these works and practically thrown into the water, because no good had resulted. He suggested that this was a question in regard to which the Irish Members on both sides of the House should unite together next session and insist upon consideration for a general scheme of arterial drainage, securing from the national Exchequer a fair share of the expense, and also securing that the various interests involved should bear a reasonable contribution.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)said Ire sympathised with the views expressed by the last speaker. He considered that when the arterial drainage was undertaken it would require more money than could be provided out of the Development Grant He and his colleagues in the north of Ireland were, as the Chief Secretary knew, deeply interested in the drainage of the Bann, and that was one of the first great arterial drainage works which ought to be carried out. He did not know the case of the South so well, but so far as the North was concerned he knew the unfortunate people in the neighbourhood of Lough Neagh had already paid over £120,000 to have their lands flooded every year, and not only had they been drowned out but their claims had been drowned out. He agreed as to the desirability for united action to obtain a remedy for this grievance.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid his right hon. and gallant friend knew that he had

1095
devoted not a little attention to the question of the drainage of the Bann, and he again appealed to the Committee not to occupy time in discussing the various proposals for the expenditure of this grant, or else they would never be able to get through the work in a reasonable time. Let them first make sure that the money would be available for Irish development.
MR. DELANYsaid he was quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and begged to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had wished to proposean Amendment in line 23, which dealt with the arrangement for allocating and auditing the grant. As the clause now stood, he thought it gave too great powers to the Treasury. It left it to the Treasury to settle nearly everything, to say what should be done with any unexpended portion of the grant, and to decide whether or not there should be any audit, and he thought the decision probably would be that there should be practically no audit. He did not think it was a proper power to leave to any Department of the State. It was a power which was intended to be, and, in his opinion, should be exercised by such a body as the Public Accounts Committee, which represented the House, and was not appointed by the Government or composed of official nominees or subject to official influence. He, therefore, suggested that the regulations referred to in this part of the clause should be made, not by the Treasury but by the Public Accounts Committee, or that the Treasury should have the assent of that Committee to any regulations which it might make. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 23, to leave out the word 'Treasury' and insert the words 'Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons,' "—( Mr. Gilson Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That the word Treasury' stand part of the clause."
MR. WYNDHAMhoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. He was aware that he held very strong
1096
views as to the duties of the Public Accounts Committee, and as to the control which should be exercised over the expenditure of public money, but he asked him not to select that measure as affording a fitting opportunity for giving a first demonstration of his financial theories. He might tell him that every shilling spent under the Bill would be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee of the House, although, of course, a year after it had been spent. It was necessary that the Irish Government should come to some proper arrangement as to the auditing of the accounts. Suppose, for instance, £20,000 was devoted to some educational purposes in Ireland, and some other sum of money to assist economic development, it was clear that the Irish Government must make some arrangement for those two purposes, and that there must be a proper audit of accounts in respect of them. The Treasury would stand at their right hand to guide them, and ultimately the accounts would have to be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid there was one very serious objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for King's Lynn which had not been pointed out by the Chief Secretary. The Public Accounts Committee had the duty of examining the accounts of the various Departments and reporting thereon, and the hon. Member now proposed for the first time in the history of this country to confer upon it functions which the Committee had not been called upon to exercise in the past. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the meaning of the words regulations as to the accumulation of money. He understood that the Treasury might make regulations with regard to audit and other matters; but he did not understand what the regulations with reference to the accumulation of money meant. Would the Treasury have the power to say whether money was to be accumulated or not?
MR. BUCHANANasked if he rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the Irish Development Grant Account would be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought that was quite clear, because they were proceeding by way of Estimate. The money would be appropriated in every financial year, and would be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Dundee, there was no novelty in the proposal in the sub-section. The Congested Districts Board in Ireland and the Agricultural Department had certain moneys at their disposal to be devoted to certain purposes, but their steps were, to a certain extent, guided by the expert assistance of the Treasury. A Department might make a proposal to accumulate money which might not be of the best possible character. All such proposals would be submitted to the Treasury just as the Estimates were submitted year by year for Treasury criticism. The words were put in at the instance of the Treasury, and he himself took no exception to them. The Treasury could give very great assistance with regard to the proper allocation of funds for various purposes, though those purposes would be decided by this House in Committee of Supply.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if he might then take it that the accumulation would be in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant under the direction of the Treasury.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the whole financial structure would be arranged with the advice of the Treasury.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he thought he might withdraw his objection. It arose from the nature of the grant; because it was not an ordinary Estimate subject to the ordinary rules under which balances were surrendered at the end of the year. If he rightly understood his right hon. friend however, the Government now undertook that the Vote should be submitted to the Controller and Auditor-General and would consequently come before the Public Accounts Committee. If that were so he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that was so.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman could not be expected to give an authoritative answer to such Questions. These were Questions
1098
which ought to be addressed to the Treasury; and a representative of the Treasury should be present.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought the criticism of the hon. Gentleman was captious. It was for the right hon. Gentleman to say what course he would adopt. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"in page 1, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (4) and insert the words '(4) Any estimate presented in respect of the unit payable in any financial year shall show the amount of the estimated balance to the credit of the Ireland Development Grant Account at the beginning of the financial year, and also the proposed application of the sums to be issued out of the account in the financial year.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Chief Secretary stated that it was better, in the interests of Ireland, that the equivalent grant should be circulated on a basis of population. For this purpose England, Scotland, and Ireland were practically a partnership. Previous grants, however, had been estimated without reference to population. For this purpose England, Scotland, and Ireland were practically a partnership. One partner drew out a certain amount of money from the Imperial funds, and it was fair that the other partners should get equivalent sums. It was not necessary that Ireland should draw it out in proportion to population. Supposing Scotland was asked to base her grant on the number of children in voluntary schools in that country. That would not be fair to Scotland, because she had comparatively few voluntary school children as compared with England. Next year Ireland would have to pay increased taxation. England might draw a larger sum; and, in that case, Ireland would have to pay a portion of the increase. Why should not Ireland have her equivalent grant fixed? The population of Ireland was decreasing; and it was absurd to say that her grant should be fixed on the same principle as applied to England and Scotland. It might be favourable to these countries;

1099
but it was obviously adverse to Ireland. If a certain proportion was fixed, then the grant would rise automatically as the grant to England increased.
Mr. WYNDHAMsaid he had no hope of being able to convince the hon. Member; but he should like to convince the hon. Member for South Kildare that Ireland would receive better treatment under the Bill than she would receive had the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark been Chancellor of the Exchequer. The basis of previous grants was calculated on the quota given to the Imperial Treasury by the three countries. That was unfavourable to Ireland, because as taxation increased, a smaller quota was made by the poorer country as compared to the quota paid by the richer country.
MR. FLYNNsaid he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was quite accurate. He had always understood that equivalent grants were not based on the quota contributed by each country, but on the aggregate amount distributed in the proportion of eighty, eleven and nine. When Lord Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was pressed over and over again for some information with reference to the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland; and then, for the first time, the Treasury put forward a proposal that grants of this kind should be put on the basis, not of the quota contributed, but in the proportion of eighty, eleven and nine of the aggregate amount of the probate duty grant. When Ireland made any demand in connection with the Local Government Act, the relief money was based not on population but upon the eighty, eleven and nine basis. It would be most disastrous to Ireland to have this based on the population. He submitted the proper way was to take the precedent of the agricultural grant.
MR. WYNDHAM: Then you would get £150,000 instead of £185,000.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 306.]

MILITARY WORKS BILL.
(Considered in Committee.)
(In the Committee).
[Mr. J. N. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the chair.]
Clause 1.
MR. LOUGHsaid the Amendment he had put down was one which would govern several other Amendments to the Bill, and if the noble Lord could see his way to accept it, it would greatly facilitate the proceedings of the Government; if, on the other hand, he could not accept it, the struggle on this Bill was likely to be much prolonged. The object of the Amendment was, first, economy. When the Resolution was put before the House they were told that £5,000,000 would be required for works, and with great reluctance the House passed the Resolution. When the Bill was issued it was found that the expenditure was to be £5,500,000 and not £5,000,000. He objected to these items of £500,000 being slipped in in this manner or taken in the session, and on that ground, on the ground of economy, he moved the Amendment. But it raised a much larger question. The Bill brought in was one of a series of measures, the first of which was introduced in 1897, and they had always been led to understand that this Bill would be of the same kind as its predecessors. When they came to examine it, however, they found an entirely different state of things. In this Bill an entirely different principle was adopted. The new principle laid down was that appropriations-in-aid should be used under the terms of this Bill, but instead of proceeding in the usual way by a Vote of the House, any sum that could be realised by the sale of barracks or Government property should go to increase the expenditure under this Bill. There were many other bad precedents created. He objected to these appropriations, and therefore begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words from the word 'Act,' to end of Sub-section (1)."—(Mr.Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR A. HAYTERsaid he supported the Amendment. He thought they ought to be very careful before allowing this enormous sum to be taken in this Vote. He had one special objection to this Bill, and that was that it constituted a reversal of the Barracks Act. Under the Act any amount received from the sale of barracks or other Government property was to be deducted from the amount received under this Vote as he had good reason to know, he having examined the Accountant-General upon the matter. The Barracks Act had now expired, but it had done a great deal of good, inasmuch as it had enabled the House to judge what was being spent. That control they would lose if this Bill passed. And because he thought this was a reversal of the Barracks Act he should support the Amendment.
COLONEL NOLANasked whether this £5,000,000 for the sale of barracks included the land of the barracks in Dublin near the river.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton)thought it was not possible to accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think the \Vat' Office asked for an indefinite sum, but, on the contrary, they asked for £5,000,000 as the definite sum they should take. This was not in any way an increase of the Vote; they only asked that they should he allowed to spend the money they might obtain from the sale of barracks for the purpose of making provision for the same number or more men elsewhere. He thought it would not be desirable to give any information as to what barracks they intended to sell until after they had been sold, because otherwise the amount they stated they desired to get might be taken as the maximum, whereas in some cases they hoped to get more.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the noble Lord had attempted to deny that this was an increased charge. Surely he was mistaken, because under this section they were empowering the Government to spend £5,500,000 in-
1102
stead of £5,000,000. That might be a good thing or a bad thing, but, at any rate, it did not correspond with the description given of it by the noble Lord. The point was that it was wholly contrary to the previous practice of the War Department to do this thing. In the ordinary course of things, if the War Office disposed of lands or of old barracks the proceeds would go into the appropriation-in-aid. In the Works Act of 1890, it was provided that when the Government sold barracks, as was proposed under this Bill, the proceeds for the sale should go in reduction of the charge for the new works. The words of that Act provided that the Secretary of State might, with the concurrence of the Treasury, sell any land in the United Kingdom for the time being vested in him, and that the proceeds of sale should be applied for the purposes of the Act, the amount authorised to be received out of the Consolidated Fund under the Act to be reduced accordingly. Why should the Government not have adopted a similar provision in the present Bill? Why should they not have allowed the proceeds of the proposed sales to go in diminution of the charge, instead of making it an addition to the charge? The War Office were taking ample money for their scheme—more than ample, he believed—and there was no need, therefore, for assigning to them this particular power to expend an additional £500,000 over and above the £5,000,000 provided for under the Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)said he did not think hon. Members opposite quite appreciated the effect of the proposal which they were making. He could not imagine any financial theory more vicious. It was that they should first raise money by loan in order to build new barracks, that they should then sell existing barracks, and that the proceeds of the sale should be utilised for the purpose of reducing the burden on the taxpayer. He really thought that the House would have serious ground for complaint if any such plan were carried out.
COLONEL NOLANdisagreed with the idea that sufficient money was taken under the Bill. He had never heard of

1103
works which had not cost a great deal more than the original estimate, and he feared that this proposed expenditure of £5,000,000 would probably grow to £7,000,000 before the scheme was completed. He wished to know whether the proceeds of the sale of land at the mouth of the Liffey some time ago—proceeds, he believed, amounting to about £100,000—were included in the £500,000 provided under the Bill?
LORD STANLEY: Certainly not.
COLONEL NOLANsaid his complaint was that money obtained by the sale of barracks in Galway might be expended in Dublin. He thought it ought to be spent in the immediate locality where the old buildings were sold, and he did not think that they ought to utilise the proceeds of the sale of barracks in England for new barracks in South Africa.
MR. LOUGHsaid the objections raised on that side of the House had not been appreciated by the Government. They wanted to secure that all these matters should be discussed by the House. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that very valuable works might become useless, and might have to be sold. Well, any transaction of that kind, involving possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds, ought not to take place without the House knowing all about it, and the House should have a voice in the appropriation of the money. If their plan were adopted the matter would come up in the annual Estimates, and an opportunity would thus be afforded to question Ministers as to the reason for their action. It would help the House in checking the extravagance which had set in, and which would prevent things being done in a hole and corner way. His hon. friend the Member for Perthshire had quoted the words of the Act passed twelve years ago, and he thought they were entitled to have some explanation why the Government had departed from the words of that Act. He also thought that they should be told whether a new principle had been established allowing the War Office, behind the back of
1104
Parliament, to sell any valuable property and apply the money as it chooses.
MR. BRODRICKdenied there was any idea of doing anything behind the back of Parliament. Their proposals would be made as clear as possible.
MR LOUCH: Where?
MR. BRODRICK: On the face of the Bill. He had heard exactly the same argument used when the first Barracks Act was introduced, and the difficulty was then relieved by providing that the schedule of expenditure in each year should be laid before the House. In the same way the Government proposed that there should be a scheduled statement of the sum realised by the sale of old barracks, and that surely would enable the House, if it chose, to further inquire into the question, and would give effective Parliamentary control. He hoped the hon. Member, under these circumstances, would not press his Amendment further.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the question was why should the change have been made, and what was to be gained by it? Why had the Government not adhered to the words of the previous Act?
MR. BRODRICKsaid the answer was simple. The change had been made because, in this particular case, large sums had been asked for barracks in South Africa, and it was in South Africa mainly that the necessity had arisen for selling barracks.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANpointed out that in 1890 also there was a prospect that certain barracks would have to be sold in the same way, and yet the words which had been quoted were put into the Act to ensure that the proceeds should go in in reduction of the amount authorised to be used out of the Consolidated Fund. That was a businesslike, proper, and. regular way of doing the business, and he must press for an answer why a change had now been made. If a large sum of money was to be realised by the sale of barracks, in his opinion it ought

1105
to go in reduction of the amount proposed to be raised under the Bill. It appeared to give justification for an expenditure of £5,000,000, when in reality it was an expenditure of £5,500,000. If the old-established practice had been followed, there would have been no complaint of ambiguity.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid no reason had been given for not following the old system. The reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman were for not putting the sum on the annual Estimates, but he thought that even for that the right reasons had not been put forward. The expenditure on barracks, provided for in the Estimates, was being reduced year by year, and placed in these Loans Bills instead. The Vote for
works, buildings, and repairs, in this year's Estimates was only £1,900,000, as against £2,186,000 last year, and over £3,000,000 in the year preceding. It was the fact that barracks were regularly being provided for out of borrowed money that gave rise to the inconvenience with regard to the proceeds of sales being taken as grants-in-aid in the ordinary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation of what was really a falsification of public accounts, inasmuch as the gross sum was put at a lower figure than it actually was. A much larger proportion ought to appear on the annual Estimates
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes 109; Noes 39. (Division List No. 201).

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flower, Ernest

Purvis, Robert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Forster, Henry William

Pym, C. Guy

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fyler, John Arthur

Raseh, Major Frederic Carne

Baird, John George Alexander

Gordon, Ernest

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benj

Groves, James Grimble

Ropner, Colonel.Sir Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashfd

Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Saunderson,Rt. Hn.Col. E.J

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Bowles, T.Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Jeffreys. Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Kemp. Lieut.-Col. George

Stone, Thomas Henry

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

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

Cavendish,V.C.W.,(Derbyshire

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Stanley, Edw. Jas.(Somerset)

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.

Lawson,J.Grant (Yorks. N.R.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs,)

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A(wore

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chapman, Edward

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Stroyan, John

Cochrane,Hn. Thos H. A. E.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cohen,Benjamin Louis

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

Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Lowe, Francis Willam

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lucas, Reginald.J(Portsmouth)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Cranborne, Viscount

Maxwell.Rt Hn SirH. E(Wigt'n

Vincent,ColSirCE.H(Sheffield)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh,N.

Walrond, Rt. Hn.Sir William H

Denny, Colonel

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Whiteley, H (Ashtonund.Lyne

Dickson, Charles Scott

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Morrison, James Archibald

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wilson-Todd,SirW.H(Yorks.)

Duke, Henry Edward

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Worsley-Taylor,Henry Wilson

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wortley, Rt.Hn.C.B.Stuart

Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wyndham-Quin,MajorW. H.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Peel,Hn. Wm.Robert Wellesley

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Percy, Earl

TELLERS For THE AYES—

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Sir Alexander Acland-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Hood and Mr.Anstruther-

NOES.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Causton, Richard Knight

Fuller, J.M.F.

Burns, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Caldwell,James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Grant, Corrie

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Emmott, Alfred

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Harwood, George

Partington, Oswald

Wallace, Robert

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Robertson, Edmund(Dundee)

Warner, Thos. Conrtenay T.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Russell, T. W.

Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Wason, J. Catheart(Orkney)

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Luke (York, E. R.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Sinclair John (Forfarshire)

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

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Spencer,Rt.Hn.C.R(Northans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Mr.Lough and Master of

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,N

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

Elibank.

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mr. LOUGHsaid he would move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper. His explanation of it was in the same sense as the last Amendment. The object of the change which the Government had made in the Act was to extend the period of borrowing for the erection of barracks. It was said that many barracks were unsuitable, and therefore the old ones had to be realised and new ones erected. He did not know why at the same time they should extend the period for which the money could be borrowed. Under the Act of 1897, the money had to be repaid within thirty years. That provision was adopted because it was thought that this was an exceptional matter, and that the Army ought to be fitted up with sufficient barracks put up by loans, and it was thought by that means that an end would be put to this system of continually borrowing for the necessities of the Army. Now the measure had been entirely changed, and they were asking that the repayment of loans should run for thirty years from the time of borrowing. The objection to this system was that the Government came too often for these loans, but if the principle that was now being asserted was accepted there was not the slightest reason why the Government should not hasten to spend any money which they had the power of borrowing on the previous Acts, and yet they came to the House for £5,500,000 more. If they were permitted to extend the period of loans as long as they liked it would set up a new and a very dangerous precedent. He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out the words from the word 'Act' to end of Sub-section (2)."—(Mr.Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 22, stand part of the clause."
MR. BRODRICKcontended that the proposal in this Bill was only a natural one, and the hon. Member in this matter appeared to be governed too much by precedent. The intention of Parliament in these Acts was that the repayment of loans should be spread over 30 years, and by this Act they were continuing the practice laid down by Parliament in the Act of 1897.
MR BUCHANANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of this Act was about as inaccurate as his interpretation of past Acts. He stated that this was really following previous precedents, but it was not so. In the first Military Works Act provision was made that the money borrowed should be met by the terminable annuities over a period of 30 years, dating from the time of the passing of the Military Works Act, and that provision had been continued in subsequent Acts. Under the first Military Works Act the money was borrowed all the way through on the same terms, and now, for the first time, in this Bill an alteration was being made, and the terms would vary from year to year, because the annuities would run out at different periods in the future. As each sum was issued the borrowing would be under different conditions and at different times, and consequently the annuities would expire at different periods. He supported his hon. friend mainly because it was their chief object to hold the Government to the idea that they should have a real scheme in their minds for the construction of a definite amount for large military works. That was the reason for which the House assented to the Military Works Act. If they now permitted this substantial alteration from previous Acts they would be allowing a departure from the original intention of those Acts.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that one great object had been entirely overlooked, which was that this proposal was an encouragement for the War Office to borrow under this Bill instead of under former Bills, because they could borrow cheaper. He thought the old Bills ought to be wound up first, and he preferred the Amendment, of the hon. Member for Perthshire. He wished to know if the Secretary of State for War would accept the hon. Member for Perthshire's Amendment, which obviated the antiquated date of 1897 and made it "the passing of this Act." That would meet their objections to a great extent, because it would make the borrowing less indefinite.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that was a matter for the Treasury.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that more or less it lay with the War Office to take up loans when they liked, and it would greatly assist them to understand the indebtedness that the War Office had got into if they knew when the loans expired. Instead of having all this debt wiped out at one time they would have these loans wiped out at a series of different dates instead of in a period of thirty years. He thought if the right Hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Perthshire, it would bring some sort of order into the issuing of these loans. If not it would be the duty of hon. Members to try and prevent this muddling of accounts by voting for this Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLEScontended that this proposal went entirely beyond the terms of the Resolution which authorised this Act. He did not know when the works would be completed. Estimates as to their cost had been made but those estimates would probably be far exceeded, and they would have an undetermined period during which borrowing might take place, and at each borrowing the date would be altered. That would be extremely inconvenient, and his opinion was that the proper way
would be to adopt the course suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perthshire. Otherwise there would be no certainty about the matter. He should recommend the Secretary of State for War to consider whether he could not accept the Amendment
MR. CALDWELLsaid this Bill marked a new departure in regard to borrowing for military works. Under the old system the initiation of works was based upon the expenditure to be incurred each year. Under the new plan, the object of which was to have a definite scheme, money was borrowed in the shape of annuities terminable in thirty years. By that means the Government was enabled to formulate a scheme for certain works of a permanent character. What the Secretary of State for War now proposed to do was to introduce a permanent system of borrowing. They were now adopting a plan of borrowing by which a burden was to be thrown upon their successors. He supposed that this system would he extended to all other kinds of works, and that there would be continuous borrowing instead of wiping off debt. It was a system conducive to extravagance, and, not merely that, but many of the works carried out might be of a character which would not be beneficial for thirty years. Barracks might be built in certain parts of the country, and on account of some change in Army organisation they might become useless. Then barracks might be built according to certain sanitary requirements, and it might be found desirable to put more troops there, but the buildings might be useless for making additions to, and they would have to be pulled down. The main objection to this system of borrowing was that instead of paying as they went along they were adopting a system by which the burden would be thrown on the future.
Question put.
The Committee divided, Ayes 118, Noes 51. (Division List No. 202.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Baird, John George Alexander

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bain, Colonel James

Balfour,RtHn. GernaldW(Leeds

Balfour,KennethR.(Christch)

Gardner, Ernest

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bathursts, Hon. Allen Benj.

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,S.)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Benthinck, Lord Henry C.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Purvis, Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pym, C. Guy

Bond, Edward

Groves, James Grimble

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bowles,T.G.(Lynn Regis)

Hain, Edward

Reid, James (Greenock)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon St.John

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Cavendish. V C W (Derbysh.)

Horner, Frederick William

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston, Manor)

Houston, Robert.Paterson

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.(Birm.

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Wore

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

Chapman, Edward

Law, Andrew Boyar (Glasgow

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks, N.R.)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenkead)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Corbett, T. L.(Down, North)

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

Strutt, Hon Charles Hedley

Craig. Chas. Curtis (Antrim,S.

Lowe, Francis William

Sturt,Hon. Humphrey Napier

Cranborne, Lord

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Denny, Colonel

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Thornton, Percy M.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Macdona, John Cumming

Tombnson, Sir Wm. Edw.M.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh,N.

Vincent,ColSirC.E.H.Sheffield

Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Morrell, George Herbert

Whiteley,H(Ashton und Lyne

Duke. Henry Edward

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Williams,RtHnJ Powell-(Birm

Elliot. Hon. A.Ralph Douglas

Mount, William Arthur

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Fergasson,Rt.Hn.SirJ(Mane'r

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Murray RtHn.AGraham(Bute)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

Wyndham-Quin, MajorW.H.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Fisher, William Hayes

Pease, H.Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Flower, Ernest

Peel,Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Sir Alexander Acland

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Hood and Mr.Anstruther.

Fyler, John Arthur

Plummer, Walter R.

NOES

Ambrose, Robert

Hayter, Rt, Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Sinclair,.John (Forfarshire)

Atherley-Jones,L.

Horniman, Frederick John

Soares, Ernest J.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

Spencer, Rt Hon CR(Northants

Bryce, Rt, Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Thomas, David, Alfred(Merthyr

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, D. Brynmor(Swansea)

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

Burt, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Wallace, Robert

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Warner. Thos. Courtenay T

Causton. Richard Knight

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Wason Eugene(Clackmannan

Davies, Alfred(Carmarthen)

Lundon, W.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

Devlin, Chas Ramsay(Galway)

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway N.

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

Elibank, Master of

Partington, Oswald

Yoxall, James Henry

Emmott. Alfred

Paulton, James Mellor

Fuller, J.M.F.

Redmond, William (Clare)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Griffith, Ellis J.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Mr. Lough and

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Russell, T.W.

Mr Corrie Grant.

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Sir Win.

Shackleton, David James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Mr. BUCHANANmoved as an Amendment to leave out "dates of borrowing" in line 23 and insert "passing of this Act." What he now proposed was that the borrowing necessary under this Bill, when it became an Act, should be from the time of the passing of the Act. That was the ordinary form in which these clauses ran in Bills of this and analogous
1112
nature. He was sure it would meet with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, until this Bill and the Naval Works Bill were introduced, it had been the invariable practice to borrow the money as from the date of the passing of the Act. That was a valuable provision in respect that it enabled one to have confidence in the statement made that the Government really had

1113
definite and clear-cut schemes in their heads which were going to be carried through under the Bill submitted to Parliament. He thought it was very much in the interest of regularity in finance that they should accept this Amendment so that they should be able to ascertain more definitely what the liabilities were likely to be under the Bill
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 23, leave out the words 'dates of borrowing,' and insert the words 'passing of this Act.'"—(Mr.Buchanan.)
Question proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR.BRODRICKsaid that there were two reasons why he could not accept the Amendment. In the first place it was at variance with the Resolution of the House under which this Bill was introduced, and in the second place it would be a most inconvenient plan on which to act. If the Amendment were adopted the annuity would run for thirty years, not from the date of borrowing, but from the date of the passing of the Act which must be antecedent by some months to the borrowing of the money for the various purposes contemplated. He was afraid that the Government could not accept the Amendment.
MR.GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was constrained to support the Amendment as one in the interest of sound finance and according to precedent. There was no precedent to be found for the operation suggested in the Bill. It was an operation indefinite and infinite, because there was absolutely no limit to the time in which the work was to be completed, and in which the money was to be required. Consequently there was absolutely no limit to the period to which the liability of the country was to be made to extend. He thought the Secretary of State for War hardly understood his own Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Amendment would violate the Resolution on which the Bill was founded. The only violation of the Resolution would be if the Bill exceeded its terms, but they
1114
might do, within the Resolution, as much as they liked. In his belief what the Resolution embodied was what was contemplated by this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that there was not to be a date, but many dates, for borrowing the money—every year, or every month, or every fortnight—when he had to make a new bargain, and the liability was fixed from the date of the new borrowing. The Committee should remember that this was a Loan Bill, and it was most important and entirely in consonance-with the traditions of the House that a definite term should be fixed to the date of borrowing unless it was for the creation of National Stock or new National Debt, in which there was only a liability to pay so much per annum, but even there also there was often a date fixed for the extinction of the loan. It was essential to fix a day when the liability for borrowing the amount stated in the Bill was to be extinguished. That had always been done in previous Bills of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it would be an inconvenient plan. Why had that inconvenient plan been previously followed? Certainly there could be no inconvenience in it. This system of loans for the purposes of naval and military works and public office site was an extremely mischievous one. It was no new one. The theory was that it was better to borrow in a lump sum than from year to year. He was not going to dispute that for a moment. If the system of borrowing proposed by this Bill were adopted, it practically came to a system of estimating from year to, year. The right hon. Gentleman might say that next year they required a million, and in the following year another million and so on. That cut away the whole ground for doing the whole operation under one loan.
MR.BRODRICK: Nobody suggests that
MR.GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Bill suggested it. The Bill suggested that the Government were to make one operation of the £5,000,000 instead of coming to Parliament year by year for what they wanted. He should find it

1115
absolutely necessary to vote for Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)said he should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reason for abolishing the practice that had been established in regard to these loans for many years? It was a serious thing to do when we were increasing, so enormously as we were doing, the liabilities of the country. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the effect of this new practice would be to postpone to a later date than would otherwise be the case the liquidation of this debt. If that were so, it was self-condemned. What they ought to do was to take in each year what they wanted. He wanted to know why they were piling loan on loan and debt on debt at this enormous rate. Some good reason ought to be given for introducing what on the face of it appeared to be a much more lax and a much more onerous system of borrowing than that to which they bad been accustomed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr.RITCHIE, Croydon)said that the right hon. Gentleman was evidently not in favour of borrowing for these works at all; that each year should bear its own burden, whatever the nature of the expenditure that had to be incurred.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Not at all.
MR.RITCHIEsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he objected to the principle of borrowing for capital expenditure. But if the right hon. Gentleman looked with disfavour only upon the accumulation of loans he was bound to say he sympathised with him. But it must be remembered that there were great deficiencies to be made up, and to have put them on the Estimates would have been to impose upon the present taxpayers a burden which they were not entitled to place upon them.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
1116
entirely misapprehended him. He had no objection to the practice which had been established by these loans. He had done it himself. He was speaking of the liquidation of the loans. He wished to know whether or not this new practice of making the terminable annuities run at different periods would postpone the liquidation of the loan to a mores distant period than would have been the case under the established practice.
MR.RITCHIEsaid that it was not contemplated to raise the money by one loan which would run a certain mumber of years. His hon. friend the Member for Lynn Regis said that the purpose of the Government was to raise the money in one lump sum.
MR.GIBSON BOWLESsaid that what he had stated was that the Resolution contemplated raising the money in one lump sum, repayable in thirty years. But this Bill contemplated the raising of successive loans, repayable at successive periods.
MR.RITCHIEsaid that these moneys were not raised by one loan but were raised as required, by means of terminable annuities. It was true that the proposal they were making was a departure from the principle laid down in the Bills of previous years, but let them see whether it was based upon sound principles or otherwise. The question was over what period of time ought the expenditure for these buildings to be spread. If thirty years was the fixed period for repayment, it was only reasonable and proper that the thirty years should commence from the time when the building was undertaken. It might well be that the building might not be undertaken until four or five years after the passing of the Act, and it was, in his opinion, perfectly justifiable that the period of repayment should commencefrom the time the money was expended. That was common sense, and there was no financial difficulty about it.
MR.EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the first Loan Act was the Naval Works Act of 1895, and that Act and every subsequent Works Act until the present

1117
was founded on the principle that the money borrowed should all of it be repaid within a period not exceeding thirty years from the first Naval Works Act. The same principle and the same system were adopted in the Military Works Act. The proposal in the Bill was a real departure from the principle upon which the Naval Works Acts and the Military Works Acts had hitherto been founded. The proposal of his learned friend was a fair and real compromise between the old and the new systems— viz: that the repayment should be made within a period of thirty years from the date on which the Bill passed. They were piling liability upon liability upon the State, and throwing more and more of the burden upon the future. Having thrown so much on the future, they should adhere to the established practice and let future generations bear the proportion that they were originally held to be bound to bear. In the case of the Naval Works Bill the Admiralty had stated that if the old system was continued the Navy Estimates would be swollen to the extent of £3,000,000 a year. That was the real reason which induced the Committee to lengthen the period of repayment in the case of the Naval Works Bill. Could the Secretary of State for War give a similar reason for extending the period in the case of this Bill?
MR.RITCHIEsaid he really could not say himself, but if he were in the position of the hon. Gentleman, as a critic, he should say that it was not a reason which ought in itself to materially influence the decision of the House of Commons. The fact of the repayment amounting to a large sum some years hence was not a sufficiently good reason to induce the Committee to depart from a sound principle. Their principle was that if it was right that the expenditure upon certain works should be spread over thirty years, then the spreading over ought to commence from the time when the expenditure was incurred. That was a sound principle.
MR.BUCHANANsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had practically admitted that these Military Works Bills were likely to be permanent institutions. The precedent set up by this Bill and
1118
by the Naval Works Bill and the Public Offices Bill was in the direction of greater laxity of financial control.
MR.GIBSON BOWLESsaid he trusted that the Committee would bear with him a little, for the right hon. Gentleman had raised a new and important matter. There was no doubt the effect of these Loan Bills was to relieve the Estimates; and if that were so it should be done on a settled principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an unwarranted attack on his predecessors in office, whose conduct, he said, had been improper, absurd, and unsound.
MR.RITCHIE: I have not said so.
MR.GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had said the system in this Bill, which was entirely new, was the only sound system, and that ally other way of dealing with the matter would be improper, absurd, and unsound. But a diametrically different system had been adopted by his predecessors in regard to Bills of this sort. There were no fewer than seventeen of such Acts in existence, on which the charge to be paid out of revenue this year was £6,876,000. According to the right hon. Gentleman, all those Acts were improper and unsound. Under the proposed system of spreading over the repayment, the period might be extended from thirty to fifty years, or even longer. He thought that on consideration the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose finance was very good, and whose views generally were sound, would recognise that he had done some injustice to his predecessors.
SIR H.CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid there was one consideration that ought to be borne in mind—viz., that they were not dealing only with an isolated Bill. These Loan Bills, unfortunately, were periodic; they were introduced every two or three years, and there would be the greatest confusion if the repayment was spread over a great number of years. It was desirable to keep the repayment within a certain limit; if there was no such limit it was quite possible that there might be expenditure still unextinguished at the end

1119
of sixty years. Moreover, these Bills would run into each other, and overlap in a way that would make control by the House of Commons almost impossible.
MR.COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the money would be repaid in thirty years from the time the building was undertaken, but the case was not when the building was undertaken but when the last expenditure on it was incurred. Take the case of the building of barracks. The contract might not he given out until five years.after the Bill was passed, and it might be five years more before the building was finished, the War Office giving the contractor the hint not to push on. The system of the Bill would therefore encourage the War Office to do work piecemeal, so that it should not appear that they were doing too much at the same time. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted. It would not hurt the Bill, and would not affect the financial point of view in any way. A new system such as was now proposed should not be introduced.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he desired to express his very strong regret at this further relaxation of the financial control of the House of Commons over military expenditure. The proceeding now proposed was contrary to the proceeding under any previous Bill of the kind. In all previous Bills, the repayment was to be made within thirty Years of the passing of the Act. That limited the period of the relaxation of the control of the House of Commons. But in this ease the limit was entirely done away with. The limit was to be not from the passing of the Act, but from the time it suited the convenience of the War Office to borrow the money. As that money might be borrowed at any
time the period might extend to an indefinite number of years. No reason had been given for that. The present was a most unfortunate occasion on which to ask the House of Commons for this additional relaxation of control, because, as was pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, the War Office had now an unusually large sum in hand, a much larger sum than they were likely to spend in the present financial year. It was, therefore, highly probable that the borrowings under this Act would be postponed for at least a year, and possibly for a considerably longer period. He earnestly appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment. It was a matter of financial control. Previous Chancellors of the Exchequer of both Parties had been in favour of a. limitation of the relaxation of control; and he appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment in order to make the Bill conformable to the precedents of former years.
MR.WEIRsaid he was not at all surprised that the War Office were anxious to extend the time for the repayment of the loan after having put such heavy burdens on the taxpayers. The whole system was so unbusinesslike that he must protest against it; and if his hon. friend went to a division, he would support him. He hoped, however, that the Government would accept the Amendment. He felt very strongly that the limit of thirty years for repayment should he adhered to. Nothing was worse than to dawdle about with new works. If they wanted barracks they should be put up promptly, and not be allowed to drag on year after year. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 203.)

AYES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bond, Edward

Chanmberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Worc

Baird, John George Alexander

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Chapman, Edward

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

Bull, William James

Corbett, T.L. (Down, North)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kimber, Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas. Thomson

Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cranborne, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Crossley, Rt. Hon Sir Savile

Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N.R.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Farcham

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sharpe. William Edward T.

Duke, Henry Edward

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N.S.

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol,S)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Francis William

Smith; James Parker(Lanarks.

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lucas, Reg'ld J.(Portsmouth)

Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset

Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley. Lord (Lanes.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Strutt, Hon. Charles Henley

Flower, Ernest

Maxwel1,Rt Hn Sir H E.(Wigt'n

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Forster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fyler, John Arthur

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, G.(Huntingdon)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,S.)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Gore, Hon. S.F. Orinsby-(Line.

Morrell, George Herbert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Goulding. Edward Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Valentia, Viscount

Greene, Hy. D.(Shrewsbury)

Mount, William Arthur

Walker, Col. William Hall

Grenfell, William Henry

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Walrond,Rt. Hn Sir Willams ll.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute

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

Groves, James Grimble

Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Hain, Edward

Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Percy, Earl

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

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Plummer, Walter R.

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Haslett, sir James Horner

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Purvis, Robert

Wyndham-Quin, MajorW.11.

Houston. Robert Paterson

Pym, C. Guy

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

TELLERS For THE AYES—

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Sir Alexander Acland

Kemp, Lient.-Col. Geroge

Reid, James (Greenock)

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Kenyon. Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

NOES

Asher, Alexander

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

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

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Shackleton, David James

Bowles, T. Gibson(Lynn Regis

Harter,Rt, Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshirer)

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Hurniman, Frederock John

Soares, Ernest J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Burt, Thomas

Jones, David B.(Swansea)

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

Caldwell, James

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Campbell-Bannerman. Sir H.

Labouchere, Henry

Wallace, Robert

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds. S

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Cremer, William Randal

Lloyd-George, David

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N

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

Doogan, P.C.

Murphy, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Elibank, Master of

Partington, Oswald

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fuller, J.M.F.

Priestley, Arthur

Mr. Causton and

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Rickett, J. Compton

Mr. Robert Spencer.

Grant, Corrie

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Russell, T.W.

MR. BUCHANANsaid he wished to move the omission of Sub-section (4). It was the last Amendment which he would move in an endeavour to restore the Bill to the same form as previous
1122
Bills. It was somewhat difficult to understand the sub-section; but he took it to mean that the new form of the schedule should be read into previous Military Works Acts. Among the large

1123
alterations made in this Bill as compared with previous Works Bills, not the least important was the alteration in the schedule. In the first place, as his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had stated, it rendered entirely impossible any comparison from year to year of expenditure on public works under this series of Acts. That distinctly lessened the financial control which the House ought to exercise over successive War Ministers. It lessened financial control also in another way. The items were lumped together in the schedule, and that, of course, diminished the knowledge of hon. Members as regarded the work the War Office were engaged in, and its progress. Further, the power of transferring money from one item to another was larger in the present Bill than in any previous Bill, and the power of the Department to spend money for purposes of which the House was ignorant, or, at any rate, had no control over, would be greatly increased. The schedules in the Acts of 1899 and 1901 were adopted in consequence of representations in this House by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition; and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor agreed on behalf of the War Office to make the White Paper issued with the Bill a part of the Act. That gave hon. Members undoubtedly greater information than they previously had, and also increased the control of the House over expenditure. He had not heard any real justification brought forward for this change. There were two suggestions made. One was that the expenditure on barracks should be made to correspond with the new Army Corps system of the right hon. Gentleman. That would enhance knowledge of what was going on, and also the control of the House over expenditure. The other point had reference to the purchase of land; but he did not see how they would be much better off in that respect under the present Bill. There was a large sum in previous schedules which could be used for the purchase of land in order to carry out the barracks scheme. That ought to be ample. Further, there was an item on the schedule for ranges. The Government purchased a large amount of land in Salisbury Plain in
1124
which not only ranges were erected, but barracks as well. That included the large property purchased from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, as far as he could judge, there had been no difficulty in regard to the purchase of land there. As no justification had been offered for departing from precedent he begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (4)."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. BRODRICKsaid that, as he had stated on the Second Reading, it would be quite impossible to accept the Amendment. Previous to the Act of 1899 when a change was pressed on his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, it had not been the practice to state where barracks were to be built. The point was made very strongly that if the hands of the War Office were tied they would be at the mercy of everybody in the locality. It had been made the means of bleeding the Exchequer, and the War Office had to come to Parliament to ask to be released from the burden which had become intolerable. He had already stated what had occurred in the case of Salisbury Plain, and the difference between the price paid for land before it was known that the War Office was going there and the land they took by arbitration from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, for which a reasonable price was given, on the one side, and the price forced upon them for intermediate plots of land which they had to take on arbitration when it was known that the War Office was purchasing. He did not think anybody with any practical experience of the working of the former Acts would differ from the course that was now being taken. There was nothing in the sub-section which released the Government from their promise to Parliament, but it did release them from the obligation either of spending public money at a rate they had no right to spend at, or not to spend at all. There was no device whatever for eluding any proper criticism.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that in his reference to the previous occasion, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland was representing the War Office, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted one fact. The theory now was that it would be fatal to the economical purchase of land if it was known where the War Office intended to erect barracks; but on that occasion a White Paper was issued giving the full information to the House of Commons, and it was called a schedule, which was rather misleading, because it was not a schedule. What they maintained was that it should have been embodied in the Bill, in order that the House of Commons should have control over the expenditure of the money.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that that was just the point. When the information was given for the guidance of the Committee on the previous Bill, it was on the clear understanding that it would not he adhered to if certain conditions arose, but the right hon. Gentleman who brought in that Bill, who had great knowledge of affairs, but who had not long been in the War Office, accepted a most vicious Amendment, and from that date until now there had been endless difficulty.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought it rather too disrespectful to a past House of Commons and to the Government themselves to say that they accepted a vicious Amendment; but that was the vicious Amendment which they wished to enforce on the Government. They were not aware that any evil flowed from it, and they certainly thought it went far to preserve the right of control of the House of Commons, and they were not aware of any reason why they should not reserve to the House of Commons their right of control of the Government.
MR. LOUGHsaid he could not for the life of him understand this clause, and he had read it through and through till his head nearly itched. He should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have given some simple explanation of it. It was a most amazing thing to him that any Government should have presented
1126
such a sentence to the House of Commons. What did it mean? It meant that all the works sanctioned by the Bills of 1897, 1899 and 1901 were not completed.
MR. BRODRICKexplained that it arranged for the allocation of unexpended money borrowed under the previous Acts.
MR. LOUGH: Did that mean that the money then voted was not all spent? It was a most dangerous thing to assent to During the last six years certain sums had been taken for certain works, and now six years afterwards they found 35 per cent. of the money granted under the Military Works Acts of 1897, 1899 and 1901 was not expended, This sub-section was brought in for its allocation. Such a thing, in his opinion, knocked the bottom out of the necessity for this Bill, and that being so, be thought it ought not to be passed without fuller consideration.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought the Committee was justified in asking for some fuller explanation with regard to this sub-section, which purported to repeal every schedule in every previous Military Works Act. Would the right, hon. Gentleman take the Act of 1899, for instance. He proposed to repeal the schedule of that Act; would he read to the Committee the schedule he proposed to substitute for the schedule now in the Act of 1899? If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, the Committee would know where it was, but if he did not, nobody would agree to it. It was a most extraordinary piece of drafting, and would puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer, let alone the House of Commons.
MR. WEIRsaid he had read this sub-section over and over again and could make neither head nor tail of it. What did it all mean He thought the Committee ought to have some explanation of it. The right hon. Gentleman had said he wanted to be received of the intolerable burden placed upon him by the previous Acts, but before he was relieved from the intolerable burden the right

1127
hon. Gentleman ought to give some light and leading on this matter.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he rose to the assistance of his right hon. friend, as he noticed there were no lawyers in the House. The Act of 1899 was the Act which placed at the disposal of the War Office £4,000,000 to experiment on certain works shown in the schedule of that Act. The effect of this sub section was to substitute for the schedules in the previous Acts the columns of figures in the schedule to this Bill, so that when anything was done in future under the former Acts those Acts would have to be read as if part of this schedule was incorporated in them.
MR. BRODRICK: Hear, hear.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the right hon. Gentleman in his reply a short time previously had led the Committee to believe that all the alterations and re arrangement of the schedules had reference to work done in military districts at home, but the alteration of the schedules went a great deal further, because a great deal of the work was to be done, not at home but abroad. Now apparently all these things were to be lumped together in one item of the schedule under the heading "Naval bases and coaling stations," with the result that it was impossible to tell from year to year what the works were and the progress made in them. If the real difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind was, as it appeared to be from the arguments he used, a difficulty in regard to the purchase of land, let him take a larger amount of money under this sub-head for the purchase of land. Then they would be in the position, so far as it was given to them to do, to review the schemes for barracks, and would still have that knowledge which they now had of the operations of the War Office.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he could not see why the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman could not prepare an intelligent schedule showing what was proposed to be spent and how it was proposed to be spent. He
1128
rose, however, to say a word or two with regard to this so-called vicious Amendment, accepted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. The House was asked to give up its control of this expenditure, on the ground that if any indication were given of the places where military works were to be erected the most extravagant prices would be demanded for the land. But the Secretary for War had a remedy for that state of things at his hand. Let him embody in the Bill the clause of the Parish Councils Act of 1894, which abolished the additional 10 per cent. given for land compulsorily purchased. He had been told, but he did not believe it, that in Scotland they got 50 per cent. for compulsory purchase. He entirely dissented from the proposition that the owner of land was entitled to 10 per cent. in addition to its value if it were purchased compulsorily. There was no reason whatever why the 10 per cent. should be given. It was purely Judge-made law. Besides, every attempt by the Government to purchase land privately by negotiation was a failure. It was like one of those Ministerial secrets which was known to everybody. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman rely solely upon the protection against extravagant demands which the law gave him? If he did not like an arbitrator, let him go to a jury.
The London County Council in carrying out their great new highway from the Strand to Holborn were overwhelmed with demands of the most preposterous prices for the buildings required to be removed, but they went before a jury, with the result that the claims were substantially reduced. The Secretary of War would have obtained the land necessary for new barracks at a great deal less money if he had gone to a jury for a settlement of the claims. Public improvements were being impeded because people were not satisfied with the fair value of their property, but required something additional for compulsory purchase. A man was entitled to the full value of his property, but not to a penny more. The House of Commons must not be deprived of its control of this class of military expenditure, which was becoming larger and larger every year; and it was

1129
also necessary that it should have in these Bills a plain, intelligible schedule. As a ease of legislation by reference this out-Heroded Herod.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he rose to support the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the remarks he had made with regard to the position the Government had chosen to take up in connection with the purchase of laud. A jury would always fix the fair value of the land. The only person who would not fix the fair value was the agent the Government employed in these matters—the land valuer. The evil of the great prices given for land required for Government purposes, arose through the reliance of the Government on valuers as arbitrators. The business of these valuers depended entirely on the fact that they always placed a higher value on land than it was worth. Yet the Government always said, when complaints were made of the extravagant prices given for land, that they had it valued by Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones "the
eminent valuer"—these people were always eminent—and that they could not go behind him. They should go to a jury, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had recommended—and then they would get the land at its fair value. Let the Government renounce for ever the land valuer and the house valuer and all their works and let them have in their own service—the Civil Service— a valuer on whom they could depend.
MR. BRODRICK: We have such a valuer.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then will the Government employ him?
MR. BRODRICK: We do on all occasions.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 60 (See Division List No. 204.)

AYES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Charles Scott

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Duke, Henry Edward

Lawson John Grant (Yorks. NR

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Baird, John George Alexander

Faber, George Denison (York)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Leveson -Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lowe, Francis William

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bigwood, James

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Flower, Ernest

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bond, Edward

Forster, Henry William

Macdona, John Cumming

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Fyler, John Arthur

Maxwell,Rt. HnSir H. E.(Wig'n

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Gardner, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Bull, William James

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Butcher, John George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrell, George Herbert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Grenfell, William Henry

Morrison, James Archibald

Cavendish. V C W (Derbysh.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mount, William Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

Hain, Edward

Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. J. A(Worc

Hall, Edward Marshall

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Chapman, Edward

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Percy, Earl

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Plummer, Walter R.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Horner, Frederick William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Dunn, North)

Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

Pym, C. Guy

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'ham

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Jameson. Major J. Eustace

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Cranborne, Viscount

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Crossley. Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Stroyan, John

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Round, Et. Hon. James

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

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

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. Stuart

Seely Mj. J E. B.(Isle of Wight

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sharpe, William Edward T

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Shaw-Stewart, M H. (Renfrew)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THY AYES—

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Walker, Col. William Hall

Sir Alexander Acland-

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

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne

NOES

Asher, Alexander

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Rickett, J. Compton

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Russell, T. W.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hayter, Sir Arthur D.

Shackleton, David James

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Horniman, Frederick John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burt, Thomas

Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

Soares, Ernest J.

Caldwell, James

Jacoby. James Alfred

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'usea

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

Channing, Francis A1lston

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Labouchere, Henry

Wallace, Robert

Cremer, William Randal

Lay land-Barratt, Francis

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Dalziel, James Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lloyd-George, David

Wason, JohnCatheart(Orkney)

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Dike, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lundon, W.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Doogan, P. C.

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

Elibank, Master of

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.

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

Emmott, Alfred

Murphy, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Flynn, James Christopher

Partington, Oswald,

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fuller, J. M. F.

Perks, Robert William

Mr. Robert Spencer and

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestly, Arthur

Mr. John Sinclair.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he Wanted to move another Amendment in order to raise a point partly discussed in the last Amendment, with regard to an additional price being paid in respect of land taken compulsorily under the Act.
THE CHAIRMANruled that the point was not relevant.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he proposed to incorporate in this Bill the powers contained in the Naval Works Bill dealing with compulsory purchase.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that would not come within the scope of this Bill.
SIR ELLIOT LEESasked if the War Office were prepared, in connection with the new barracks they were about to build, to provide increased accommodation for mounted troops, and especially to provide for corps of mounted infantry.
MR. BRODRICK: I think this point would more properly be raised on the schedule.
SIR ELLIOT LEESsaid the clause provided for an expenditure of £5,500,000 for barracks and therefore any question as to the purposes for which barracks were to be erected was in order.
THE CHAIRMANruled that this point must he raised on the schedule, otherwise those who objected to money being spent on hospitals or ranges or any other purpose might raise similar discussions. The hon. Member should bring forward his point on the specific items when it was reached.
SIR ELLIOT LEESsaid it was not a specific but a general item. He was in favour of spending the money, but fie wished to know generally how it was to be spent.
THE CHAIRMAN: That clearly should come on the schedule.
Clause I agreed to.
Schedule.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was sorry to be compelled to trouble the House at that time of the session, and on a Friday afternoon, but the action of the Government in bringing this Bill forward at the fag end of the session was responsible. He felt bound to take up the time of the Committee by his very strong sense of the principles involved in the Bill. He intended to propose to omit the sum of£594,000 provided for defence works. The schedule at the foot showed a total of nearly £31.000,000; that expenditure he classed under two heads, one involving questions of high policy and the other concerned in administrative matters, such as the provision for the housing and training of troops. Both classes of expenditure involved, of course, outlay for creation as well as depreciation, and in that respect they were on all fours. But the difference between defence works, and barracks and ranges was that the latter fulfilled the demands for the training of troops and created no new demands in military requirements—no new expenditure in fact, while when fortifications were built then began the read drain on the resources of the country for armaments, stores, etc. In other words barracks and ranges fulfilled military wants, while fortifications created new military wants. The House had already voted £2,870,000 in six years for defensive works, and had been denied any information as to nature, and where they were situated. In three Military Works Bills in six years the House had voted blindfold nearly 3,000,000 of money, which the War Office had spent in the manner it chose without consulting the House. This plea for concealment was ridiculous, that the Admiralty did not conceal the details as to battleships of cruisers, or the places it was proposed to build them. But the War office proclaimed, "We must not let the House of Commons.
1134
know what we are doing or where we are expending this money." He protested against that. There was too much nonsense talked in the War Office of that kind. The policy was not due to a fear of foreign nations knowing what we were doing; it was due to a fear of criticism by the House of Commons. These defensive works, as he had said involved high questions of military, policy. Forty-five years ago no English man ever dreamt for one moment of saying that we could defend this country by heaping up piles of earth and putting guns on top of them, while giving shelter to British troops behind them. But then the nation took fright at the utterances of certain colonels across the water. Parliament participated in the panic and Lord Palmerston jumped with the popular emotion and appointed a Royal Commission for the specific purpose of inquiry into the condition of efficiency of our fortifications and to consider the means of securing a complete state of defence by permanent fortifications. That was the first step towards revolutions our military policy. The Commission was composed of four. generals—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going too far back. Considering that since 1897 we have had three Acts of Parliament providing for defence work, I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to go back to the days of Lord Palmerston.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he had no desire to place himself out of order or unnecessarily intrude on the time of the House. But this £594,000 which he was proposing to omit was the last contribution to the series under the policy then started. He wished to point out how after an enormous expenditure we had only augmented the cost and destroyed the mobility of our army. If he was only to be allowed to deal with the works for which this £594,000 was asked he could say no more, for they had no information plated.
THE CHAIRMAN: I said it was unnecessary for the hon. And gallant Member to go back to the time of lord palmerston, when Acts of Parliament

1135
embodying the policy he objected to had been passed in the last six years.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the Bills mentioned were the last three of series which commenced in the time of Lord Palmerston. He would, of course, bow to the Chairman's ruling, and would try to raise the question on the Appropriation Bill. Since he was debarred from dealing with this question of policy, which was at the root of their present enormous expenditure, perhaps he might be allowed to point out what the position of our army was in those days. We were then spending £14,800,000; we had 92,000 men in India, and the number of regular troops available for service any-where was 143,362. Now we had 17,000 less troops in India; our military expenditure had doubled, and the number of troops available for general field service was 144,083. So after spending millions on fortifications the net result was an increase of their mobile army by 721 men, while the annual expenditure had been doubled. That was the outcome of a new departure, made in a hurry. There was more behind. In those days we had a free force available for general service. Now the men were locked up under our policy of fortifications. It might be suggested that the conditions now prevailing were wholly different from those which obtained before the policy of fortifications was entered upon. But in what way were they different? Happily they had during the past few years driven the War Office from pillar to post, with the result that there had been a diminution in the expenditure on defensive works. At one time defensive works were to be constructed for the protection of London, but they had been abandoned. These works were based on the supposition of an attack by a naval force upon our ports. But that was all changed now. The cost of warships, and the relative importance of a single ship to the whole national naval power, had enormously increased, with the result that whereas in former times ships might be risked for a comparatively small object, no admiral or captain would now risk his ship except for a decisive result. The probability, therefore, was a reduction of any chance of ships attacking fixed points. The speed of ships had also increased, and the uncertainty of the movements of the
1136
oppsing ships hampered the use of ships as an attacking force. Obviously ships would not be risked in an attack on fixed point, to produce and effect upon which would take some hours, when they were liable, through the agency of the telegraph, to have brought upon them the ships of the defending power. But the most important element was the reduction of the carrying power of ships in regard to ammunition. The capacity was so restricted that not a single round of ammunition could be spared, except for some definite result, and it was preposterous to suppose that ships would use their ammunition in an attack on a fixed point and then have to run the risk of being caught ammunitionless by the opposing fleet. A further consideration was the limit of life of modern naval guns. The effect of every modern improvement was to make fortifications less necessary, The War Office constructed these works on naval assumptions without naval justification, and that was why he objected to them. This mad race in expenditure could not go on. He defied the Secretary of Stare for War to deal with this matter from the point of view of naval strategy. No doubt he would say that it was done with the advice of the naval authorities, but those authorities would give very different advice if the Admiralty had to pay for it. The system of naval advice was simply that the War Office prepared plans on naval assumptions; they then called in the naval advisers and said "If a ship was here and another there, would this do?" But the point of the whole thing was that the ships would not be there at all. During the last forty years there had been a series of wars, four of which involved operations both naval and military. In those four wars four national fleets have been wiped, out, but in not a single one of these wars did fortifications or fixed defences play any material part. In spite of the lessons of these modern wars, the War Office still went on wasting money on and tying up the Army in fortifications, simply up the Army in fortifications, simply because forty years ago a Commission which sat for a few days said that this fortification policy should be adopted. He felt it his bounden duty to oppose this waste of military power and national money, and therefore begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 9, to leave out the figures '£594,000"—(Sir John Colamb.)
Amendment negatived.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

NAVAL WORKS RILL.
(Considered to Committee.)
(In the Committee.)
[Sir FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham) in the Chair.]
I. Schedule—
MR GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the estimated expenditure on the Britannia Royal Naval College for 1903–4 and 1904–5, which was £177,390. His point was that this very large expenditure was undertaken on the ground that it would be sufficient provision for the whole of the naval cadets for the Navy. In addition, another large sum would have to be provided for Osborne College. Surely, in view of that, they ought to be saving something on Britannia College. Perhaps, however, a much larger number of cadets had to be provided for.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) at this stage took the Chair.]
TRE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PBETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)said that 260 cadets was the provision under the old scheme; but under the new scheme of naval training the total number was about 800, and there would be 400 cadets at each college.
MR. CALDWELLsaid in reference to the sum of £200,000 for the naval establishment at Rosyth, that it had been ascertained that the property had been advertised for the last ten or twelve years to feu, but not a single application to erect buildings had been received by the owner. When the matter was before the Committee it was stated by the Government that they had asked Sir A. Binnie of Glasgow to give his opinion of Rosyth as a feuing site. The proprietor had been advertising
1138
this as felling land for ten or twelve years without getting an offer, so that the Government in paying for it as land suitable for dwelling-houses had paid in respect of a value which it did not possess. The best proof that it had no feuing, value was to be found in the tact that there was no demand for building land in the district. If the Government had made inquiry they would have found that in the neighbourhood a private individual bought 2,200 acres. including the minerals, for £38,000. The rental of that land was £1,000 for the surface and £800 or £900 for the minerals. The rental of the land bought by the Government was £1,600 a year, and they paid. £122,000 for it, excluding the minerals. It was clear, therefore, that nothing could be more extravagant than the price paid for the land. They were under no compulsion to give an exorbitant price. They could have put into operation the Land Clauses Act and they would then have been able to get it at a fair price as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Lord Linlithgow knew perfectly well with whom he was dealing. The Government put on valuers to value the land as a felling property. It was a mere hollow pretence to say that this was a private sale upon the report of valuers. They could get valuers to value anything at any price. They could not get over the plain common-sense of it, that they were paying eighty years' purchase of the rental when nobody else paid more than twenty-six years' purchase. How could they treat 1,600 acres as feuing property merely because there was a distant possibility of feuing half-a-dozen acres? In point of fact there was no demand for dwelling houses there, as was proved by the fact of a man having land in the district having tried in vain to feu it for ten or twelve years. Again, they were told that the Admiralty had been making borings with the object of seeing what was the nature of the foundations. He had been making inquiry, and was informed that there was a hundred feet of sludge or clay before they got to the solid ground. If that were true it was exceedingly serious, because in a naval base or dockyard they would have to deal with heavy

1139
buildings, and heavy machinery. Assuming that the borings showed that there was no solid foundation to be got under a hundred feet digging, obviously the site would be practically useless for the purposes of the Government.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Stafford-shire, Lichfield)said that there were two items on the schedule, "coaling facilities and fuel storage," and "electric lights and electric power." What he wanted to know was why these were put separately under different headings and—
THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think hon. Members were entitled to go back over all the items when the question was that the schedule as a whole should be added to the Bill. Each item had already been considered and discussed, and hon. Members would not be in order in going back on the whole ground already covered.
COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to know if he would be in order in moving the omission of the last two items.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is that the schedule, as a whole, be added to the Bill.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that in that case he would merely point out that there were works mentioned in the schedule which were not permanent works. There was the item for electricity, for instance, which would be worn out long before the loan was repaid. He thought it most improper that loans should be used for the purposes of temporary works; and he would; therefore, object to the schedule as a whole.
LOUGHsaid that the schedule was a most extraordinary one in some ways. Many of the estimates were not estimates of the total cost; and that could not be regarded with satisfaction. The Committee ought not to agree to such items without knowing what the total cost was to be. He thought it was
1140
understood that some of the larger items should be further explained. The Chatham item especially should be explained.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he had nothing to add to what he had already stated, except that the plans of Rosyth would be available to hon. Members.
MR. CALDWELLasked if it was the case that Lord Linlithgow had been advertising Rosyth for ten or twelve years, and could not get a purchaser. Then as to the boring operations, was it a fact that 100 feet had to be sunk before anything solid was reached. If information could not be given on these points now, it ought to be forthcoming on the Third Reading.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he could not pretend to set himself up against the hon. Gentleman as an authority on boring. The borings would be carried to the proper depth; and, as regarded the land, portions of it had been felled within the last few days.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had received no reply in reference to the inclusion of temporary works in the schedule, against which he protested.
MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to know, with regard to Rosyth, if the Government had any objection to produce the valuers' report on which the Admiralty acted. He also hoped an explanation would be given with reference to the items for electricity and other temporary works in the schedule for which money ought not to be borrowed.
THE CHAIRMAN: I really must again protest against hon. Gentlemen discussing each of these items separately, after we have gone through them all. The object of going through the items would be frustrated if hon. Gentlemen were to discuss each item again. I must remind the Committee that the only question now before the Committee is that this be the schedule of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

SOUTH AFRICAN LOANS BILL.
(Considered in Committee.)
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith,) in the Chair.]
SIR. A. HAYTERcalled attention to an item of £14,000,000 for the purchase of the Transvaal and Orange River Railways. He pointed out that a sum of £1,000,000 was advanced to these railways during the war for the purpose of obtaining rolling stock, but when the question came up in the Public Accounts Committee they found au additional sum of £577,000 had been advanced by the military authorities, of which £161,000 had also been used for the purchase of rolling stock. He desired to know whether this additional sum had been considered in considering the terms for the purchase of these railways.
SIR CHARLES DILKEcalled attention to the statements published in a book just published, written by Sir Woodhouse Richardson, who was at the head of the Supply Department of the Army Service Corps during the war in South Africa, as to the frightful amount of waste that had taken place, and the extent to which accounts had been paid twice over. The revelations in that book were of a frightful nature, and he merely desired to call attention to it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)said he had not yet made himself acquainted with the book referred to by the right hon. Baronet.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: It is only just published.
MR. RITCHIEsaid the Government expected shortly to be able to come to terns with both shareholders and debenture-holders in the settlement of South African railway claims. The £14,000,000 mentioned in the schedule of the Bill was only an estimate of what the Government expected to pay for the acquisition of the railways. There was no doubt that the £1,000,000 advanced for the purchase of rolling stock would
1142
be received back. With regard to the additional sum expended on rolling stock, to which the right hon. Baronet called attention in reference to the report of the Committee on Public Accounts, he was now in communication with the Colonial Office, and he would endeavour to give information on a subsequent stage of the Bill. He was unable to do so at present.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) further considered.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the Amendment he proposed to move was to make the law permanent by giving these powers to any borough that should become large enough. If this Bill had passed 100 years ago, for instance, Birmingham would not have the powers because then it had not 20,000 inhabitants. When a borough grew to 20,000 inhabitants the conditions of life of the children changed from rural to urban and the powers given to the County Council were no longer sufficient. He begged to, move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 13, after the words 'nineteen, hundred and one' to insert the words 'or any subsequent census.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE Ayrshire, N.)said the census obtained for the purposes of this Bill was the same as that obtained for the Education Act. The authority under that Act rested on the census of 1901. It would be extremely inconvenient to have a different authority for this Bill. Of course ultimately it might be necessary to have a redistribution scheme over the whole country.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had no wish to press the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON Glasgow, Bridgton): I beg to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 24, to leave out Subsection (1)."—(Mr. Scott Dickson.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had an Amendment to propose in line 34, with the object of bringing the English and Scotch systems into uniformity. He thought it would be an advantage to both countries.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 34, after the word 'mean' to insert the words in the case of a school board with a population, according to the census of nineteen hundred and one, of over ten thousand the school board. '"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid the change would be inconvenient, so far as Scotch Local Government was concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (Renfrew-shire, W.)formally proposed an Amendment of Clause 12.
MR. CALDWELLasked if it were in order. Was it competent to make such a financial change on Report?
MR. SPEAKER: I have made inquiries and I gather that the Amendment does not alter the incidence of rating.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 28, to leave out the words general purposes rate,' and insert the words public health general assessment leviable within the county or a district of the county, provided that in any Royal. Parliamentary, or police burgh having, according to the Census of nineteen hundred and one, a population of less than seven thousand, a proportion of such expenses corresponding to the valuation of such burgh shall be paid to the County Council out of the public health general assessment leviable in such burgh, in compliance with a requisition to that effect to be sent to the
1144
town council of such burgh annually not later than the month of October in each year.'"— (Sir Charles Renshaw.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 30, to leave out from the word assessment,' to the word 'and,' in line 33."—(Sir Charles Renshaw.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, line 1, to leave out sub-section (3), and insert the words—The expression local authority' means in the case of an urban district with a population according to the census of nineteen hundred and one of over live thousand, the District Council and elsewhere the County Council."
"In page 7, line 4, after the word Proceedings' to insert the words under this Act.'"
"In page 7, line 5, to leave out the words Corporation or County Council,' and insert the words 'local authority.'"
"In page 7, line 6, to leave out the word 'the' and insert the word a.'"
"In page 7, line 8, to leave out the words and costs to be.' "
"In page 7, line 8, after the word 'incurred' to insert the words by a local authority.'"
In page 7, line 9, to leave out from the word 'defrayed' to end of clause, and insert the words in the case of the Conned of a county borough or of a District Council out of any rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and in the ease of a County Council out of the county fund, and in such case the amount required therefor may he raised by means of the poor rate equally over so much of the county as does not comprise any urban district the council whereof is constituted a local authority under this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
Amendments agreed to.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. A AKERD DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a third time. It has been generally agreed to on both sides, and the alterations made in it have been very slight.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Do the Government propose to take any more business?
MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Only the Patriotic Fund Bill.
MR. LOUGHpointed out that hon. Members had facilitated the progress of business in every way

1145
that day, and might be inclined to allow this Bill to be read a third time, but it was hardly fair to keep them at work much longer The Government might well be satisfied with the business done.

PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.
(Considered in Committee.)
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
MR. LOUGHmoved to report Progress on the ground that many hon. Members interested in the Bill were not present. The Second Reading was passed, he reminded the Committee, on the understanding that ample discussion would be allowed on the Committee stage.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lough.)
MR. RITCHIEsaid the Government were quite unable to accept the Motion. It was really for the general convenience of the House that they should get forward with the business, as unless they did so it would be impossible to bring the session to an end at the date desired.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONpointed out that the Bill, though it might not be described as a controversial measure, had really not been considered at all. It was a very important Bill, and the Government would be well-advised to accept the Motion to report Progress.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester-shire, Forest of Dean)said the schedule was a most difficult one to discuss, and. although there were only two Amendments on the Paper, questions would probably arise requiring more time than could he given to-day. He suggested that it the Bill was taken at all the Government should be content with the clauses, and leave the schedule to be dealt with subsequently.
MR. RITCHIEsaid there was no intention of keeping the House very
1146
late, but they might as well make the best use of the time.
MR. DALZIELsuggested that to get the clauses of this Bill and the Resolution setting up the Committee in connection with the Sugar Convention (expenses and duties) would be a fair compromise.
MR. RITCHIEappealed to the Committee to deal with the Bill as far as they could instead of wasting time on a division.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMANmoved the omission of line 16, the reason being that at present there were a number of dependents of Crimean veterans receiving pensions from the fund, but whose fathers did not lose their lives in the service of the Crown. Unless the Amendment were made these recipients would lose the pensions.
SIR A. HAYTERsaid there were on the fund 1,300 widows of men who served in the Crimea but did not die in the service, and these would all be struck off unless the Amendment were made.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, to leave out line 16."—(Mr. Pretyman.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:—
MR. PRETYMANmoved to omit the word "permanent" from line 20. The object of the Amendment was not to confer benefit on officers at present in the employment of the Patriotic Commissioners, but the new body could not take any action until after 1st January next year, and the Patriotic Commission would cease to exist on 31st December this year. There would thus be an interregnum, and in order to carry on the continuity of the work the omission of the word "permanent" was advisable.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word 'permanent.' "—(Mr. Pretyman.)
SIR A. HAYTERsupported the Amendment. Under the new corporation there would be a great deal more work to do, and there was not the slightest danger of the men not being taken over.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HAYES FISHERsaid the words he wished to propose confined the provision to the legal rights of and position of those who might be under the expectation of pensions. Those who ha I followed the history of the Patriotic Commissioners knew that a good deal of complaint had been directed against them for granting certain pensions, and using the money which might have been devoted to more deserving applicants. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'that' to insert the words the legal position and rights of.'"—(Mr. Hayes Fisher.)
MR. PRETYMANsaid this Amendment had apparently been moved under a misapprehension. The pensions dealt with were not really Civil Service pensions, to which they had a right by law, and they could only be awarded by the permission of the Treasury. If those words which had been proposed were inserted, he did not think those persons would get any pensions at all.
MR. HAYES FISHERsaid his Amendment was not moved under a misapprehension, but under an apprehension that understandings might have been arrived at which ought not to be carried out by the new body. The new body ought to have a perfectly free hand, only controlled by the legal rights they at present possessed. So long as some language was introduced which confirmed their rights to their legal rights, and so long as the new body would not he hound to do anything more than give them the legal rights which they at present enjoyed, he should be satisfied. Would the hon. Member bring up some such words on the Report stage?
MR. PRETYMANsaid he sympathised with his hon. friend's object, and he should be glad to refer the matter to the law officers of the Crown to see what words could be devised to carry out this object.
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Fulham was a good one, although he agreed that the objection raised by the Civil Lord was a strong word. He understood that his hon. friend's Amendment would be considered.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that the question would be considered before the Report stage.
MR. HAYES FISHERasked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule:—
MR. COURTENAY WARNERmoved to report Progress, because he was sure there was a very strong feeling in regard to this part of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was a good deal of doubt about the schedule, and if it were taken on Tuesday they would have time to consider it, and possibly it would not then take up much time. If the Government insisted upon taking it now there would certainly be a debate upon it.
Committee Report Progress to sit again upon Monday next.

SUGAR CONVENTION [EXPENSES AND DUTIES].
(Considered in Committee.)
(In the Committee.)
[MR. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a share of the expenses of the Permanent Commission and of any Expenses in connection with the attendance of delegates at the Commission, which may be payable under any Act of the present session to make provision for giving effect to a Convention signed the 5th day of March, 1902, in relation to sugar. That the duties payable under Section 2 of The Finance Act, 1901, or any Act amending the same, shall be taken on the delivery of any article from any factory or refinery, which in pursuance of any Act of the present session is made subject to the supervision of the Commissioners of Customs or Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and shall be the same as those payable on the like articles on importation."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. LOUGHsaid it was extremely difficult to criticise the Resolution on hearing it read. This Resolution illustrated the impropriety of the House being asked to consider proposals which did not appear on the Paper. There was no amount of money mentioned. It was a Resolution pledging them to find the expenses of the Permanent Commission. Which was the most humiliating body they had ever taken part in. A certain amount of money had been paid to the gentleman who attended the Conference.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the character and ability of the gentleman who attended the Conference can be raised on this Resolution.
MR. LOUGHsaid that would certainly arise a large question. The latter part of the Resolution seemed to be like another Finance Bill. He supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood it, but certainly none of the rest of them did. It seemed to him a strong Resolu
tion, and it would be better that they should postpone their criticisms until they saw it on the Paper.
MR. DALZIELsaid he thought the Government were aware that they were only beginning a pretty protracted fight. He understood that if they adopted the Resolution now they would have an opportunity of discussing it on another occasion.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked what further opportunity there would be for discussing the Resolution.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)said there would be a Report stage of the Resolution. The first part of the Resolution spoke for itself. The second part was simply this. The present system was to levy duty on sugar when imported. When the new system came into force the duty would be levied on all refined sugar coming out of bond.
MR. LOUGHsaid if they did not put the factories in bond there would be no reason to change the mode of collecting the duty in this country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the matter fully, he might find a way of carrying out the requirements of the Convention without putting the factories in bond.
MR. RITCHIEsaid they could not possibly levy duty on the raw sugar and comply with the Convention. If they were to levy duty upon sugar as it came in they would have to assume how much of it would he refined sugar. Instead of that they proposed to levy duty on the refined sugar coming out. There could be no doubt as to what was refined and what was not refined.
Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 89: Noes, 29. (Division List No. 205.)

AYES

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Baird, John George Alexander

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

Balcarres, Lord

Bathurst. Hon. Allen Benj.

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Bigwood, James

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. A.(Wore

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.)

Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Stunt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lowe, Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Morrell, George Herbert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Percy, Earl

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Forster, Henry William

Plummer, Walter R.

Fyler, John Arthur

Pretyman, Ernest George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gardner, Ernest

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sir Alexander Acland

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Purvis, Robert

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Reid, James (Greenock)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Grenfell, William Henry

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

NOES

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Russell, T. W.

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, William (Canarvonshire

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cremer, William Randal

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, Donal

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Landon, W.

Weir,.James Galloway

Emmett, Alfred

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Murphy, John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

O'Mara, James

Mr. John Sinclair and

Horniman, Frederick John

Partington, Oswald

Mr. Robert Spencer.

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a share of the expenses of the Permanent Commission and of any expenses in connection with the attendance of delegates at the Commission, which may be payable under any Act of the present session to make provision for giving effect to a Convention signed the 5th day of March, 1902, in relation to Sugar. That the duties payable under section two of The Finance Act, 1901, or any Act amending the same, shall be taken on the delivery of any article from any factory or refinery, which in pursuance of any Act of the present session is made subject to the supervision of the Commissioners of Customs or Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and shall be the same as those payable on the like articles on importation.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Fourth Report brought up, and read.
Report to be upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Fifth Report, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]

PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
Ordered, That Sir Joseph Lawrence and Mr. Courtenay Warner be discharged, and that Sir William Rattigan and Mr. Luke White be added to the Committee.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty minutes after Seven o'clock till Monday next.

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 further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Post Office Sites.
Also a certificate that in the case of the following Bill (referred to them by order of the House of the 14th instant),the provisions of the Bill have been approved of at a meeting of the members of the Clogher Valley Railway Company, held in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order No.64. Ulster and Connaught Light Railways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester southern Tramways Bill[H.L.]; Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments
Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Read 3a, and passed
Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement Bill, now Ebbw Vale Improvement Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Erith Tramways and improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Moved, That Standing Order No 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.
Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and improvements Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Gosport and Fareham Tramway's Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Western Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  General reports of His Majesty's Inspectors on elementary schools and training colleges, for the year 1902.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Thirty-ninth annual report of the Registrar-General, for the year 1902.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the sea and inland fisheries of Ireland, for the year 1902 (Part I. General Report).
  QUEEN'S C'OLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Annual Report of the President, for the year 1902–3.
  Directory of Industrial Associations in the United Kingdom in 1903.
  LIGHT LOAD LINE, 1903.
  Papers showing the action taken by the Board of Trade with regard to certain recommendations made by the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Light Load Line.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Returns of the capital, traffic, receipts, and working expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1902; with a General Report thereon and Summary Tables for a series of years.
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Statistical Report of the health of the Navy, for the year 1902.

  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Report on the administration and working of Indian railways, by Thomas Robertson, C.V.O., Special Commissioner for Indian Railways.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account showing the receipt and expenditure of naval prize, bounty, and salvage, and other moneys between 1st April, 1902, and 31st March, 1903. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE MILITIA BALLOT.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have so often spoken upon this subject that I do not propose to make any remarks in putting the Question which stands in my name to the noble Duke, and which reads as follows:— "To ask the President of the Council of Imperial Defence whether the question of the Militia ballot has engaged the attention of the Council, and further, inasmuch as Lord Lansdowne when Secretary for War, brought in an amending Bill bringing the present Militia Ballot Act up to date, and proceeded no further with it; is it the intention of His Majesty's Government, at any time, to proceed with this Bill and to pass it into law; and if so, when." If your Lordships will look at the paper you will see that I have a Militia Ballot Bill down for Second Reading, and that will enable me, if anything is said by the noble Duke in answer to this Question which appears to me to require a reply, to say what I have to say then. At present I confine myself to putting the Question standing in my name.
  The LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I think it must be clear to your Lordships that the proceedings of the Committee of Defence are, and must be, of an extremely confidential character, and that it is my duty, as President of the Committee, to be extremely cautions in giving any reply to the Question of the noble Earl which might in any way be drawn into a precedent for further inquiries on matters under the consideration of the Committee. I believe that it is quite true that a statement was made the other day in the other House of Parliament relating to a force being maintained in South Africa, in which, reference was made to the fact that the question had been under the consideration of the Defence Committee, and that the proposals of the Government were founded upon the recommendations of the Committee Well, my Lords, that statements related to a subject which it was prepared on its own responsibility to make a proposal and the fact, therefore, that it had been considered, before the Government made a definite proposal, by the Committee could be stated, no doubt, without any inconvenience. But the matters with which this Committee has had, and may have, in the future to deal are, as I have stated, of so confidential a character, that I think it will be well in the future to err rather on the side of prudence and caution, and to refrain as far as possible from any reference to the proceedings of a Committee which are necessarily of so confidential a character. What Parliament has, I conceive, to deal with, are the decisions which are arrived at by the Government, necessarily on its own responsibility; and I am quite sure that the Government had no desire, neither would it be justified in sheltering itself in regard to any decision behind the decision of a Committee of this character. I must, therefore, decline to give any further answer to the first part of the noble Earl's Question. The noble Earl, however, asks in the latter part of the Question whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government at any time to proceed with the Bill which was introduced some sessions ago by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, when Secretary of State for War, and to pass it into law, and, if so, when. I think in putting that Question

  1033
  the noble Earl must have forgotten that at an earlier period of the session the Government recommended the appointment of a Commission, the reference to which was:
  "To inquirer into the organisation, numbers, and terms of service of our Militia and Volunteer forces, and to report whether any, and if any what, changes are required in order to secure that those forces should be maintained in a condition of military efficiency, and at an adequate strength."
  I think it must be quite clear to the House, and I trust also to the noble Earl, that a time when this Commission has been appointed and is conducting its investigations, would be the very last at which it would occur to the Government to proceed with a Bill dealing with part of the very subject under the consideration of the Commission. Therefore the only answer which I can give to the noble Earl is that it certainly is not the intention of the Government at the present time to proceed with the measures, and its action as to the future must depend, at all events, in part upon the Report which it may obtain from the Commission which has been appointed.

  MILITIA BALLOT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL Of WEMYSS:: My Lords, the Bill which I hold in my hand is the measure referred to in the latter part of the Question to which the noble Duke has just replied. I thank my noble friend the President of the Committee of Imperial Defence for his courteous statement, and I quite admit the soundness of his arguments for not giving an answer. But it seemed to me that it was desirable to keep this Question, which deals with the very foundation of military defence, alive. The Bill is, in fact, Lord Lansdowne's Bill, introduced when he was Secretary of State for War; and when the noble Marquess presented the Bill he admitted that the present law with regard to the Militia Ballot is obsolete and requires to be amended, and he stated that this Bill was for the purpose of bringing the Militia Ballot up to date. It is an absurd position for any nation to occupy to have
  1034
  a military system which rests as its sure foundation on the Militia Ballot, on compulsory home service, and then to allow a measure of this kind, brought in by the Minister for War, to meet an emergency that may at any rate arise, to be on the Table. I have simply put this Bill down, as I have said, to keep the matter alive; and I formally move the Second Reading in case any noble Lord wishes to say anything on the subject. It is a matter which should be dealt with by the Government. I should like to quote from a preface to a pamphlet on the Militia and Volunteers which was issued in February of this year, because it expresses exactly the present situation with regard to military matters:—
  "In these days, when so much is said and written re Army re-organisation; when so-called re-organisation is being attempted by building on the 'bed rock' of thinnest air, to the ignoring and neglect of our existing military system which rests absolutely in principle—aye, and in law, annually suspended—on the Crown's immemorial right to call upon its subjects to serve compulsorily for Home Defence; and when the possibility of our Navy failing to ensure our food supply in time of war has led to the formation of the Food Supply in Time of War Association—it seems to me useful to republish some matter bearing upon Home Defence and our existing military system. Further, I would point out, when it is said that our Navy is an all-sufficient security against invasion, that the coracles, or navy, of the period did not keep the Vikings from our shores, nor prevent the successful occupation of Britain by the Romans for 400 years; also that the navy of the day did not save us from the Norman invasion and conquest; nor prevent the landing of William of Orange in England, nor of the Pretender in Scotland, nor of General Hoche in Ireland. The fact is that no nation in the world has been so variously and successfully subjected to invasion as the British people, in whose veins now runs the mixed blood resulting therefrom, plus in some quarters, a Spanish infusion due to the Armada wreckage on our coasts. And well would it he for us now if we had a good Queen Bess ruling at the Admiralty and War Office, for, not satisfied with her fleets and sea power under the Howards, Drakes, and Frobishers of the period, she had our Home Land Defences so completely organised that it was even laid down how many horse shoes and nails each company should carry as part of its equipment. Since then 300 years and more have come and gone. Let the War Office say whether or no our means of land defence are in the days of Edward the VII., relatively equivalent to those of the Elizabethan period of our history. If not, let the nation insist on their being made so, without an hour's delay, by putting in force our existing military system, and by casting all novel, costly, vain, military imaginings to the winds."

  1035
  You are going to take 25,000 men out of England and station them in South Africa, therefore the defensive power of England will be 25,000 men short. General Peel introduced a Militia Army Reserve under which the Militia gave voluntarily a certain number of men—30,000ߞto the Army. He intended that for every one so given another should be raised, but that has not been done and the Militia Reserve has been abolished; therefore the Army is 30,000 men short on that head alone. I think this state of things requires very serious consideration on the part of the Government. Ministers should do their duty by the nation and put in force the Act which they annually suspend. There is no nation, civilised or uncivilised, that has a military system where those who are responsible for its administration and for the safety of the nation have not the courage to enforce it. I do not think the public would object, but the Government fear that votes might be lost if they enforced compulsory home defence. I have some right to speak on this subject with knowledge, because two or three years ago I issued a circular to all lords-lieutenant, chairmen of County Councils, chairmen of quarter sessions, mayors, provosts and other officials throughout the country, asking them whether they were satisfied with our present state of national defence, and seventy-five per cent. replied that they were not satisfied. The second question I put to them was whether they believed that the people of this country would accept ballot for the Militia in an amended and simple form. At present ballot for the Militia means that every man from eighteen to forty-five years of age is liable. All that is needed is that every man who attains the age of twenty and is not serving the State in the Army, the Navy, the Volunteers, the Police, or in some other form, should be liable to ballot for the Militia. The replies I received to the effect that the writers thought the nation would accept such a modification were two to one of the total.
  It is, of course, folly to think of proceeding at this time with this Bill, and I have only moved it in order to draw attention to the present state of things.
  1036
  I do not ask that the Government should enforce the ballot, but that they should bring it to that state at which it is available if needed. At present it is of no value at all. I hope this subject will be considered by the Commission to which the question of the Militia and Volunteer forces has been referred, and that they will take a sensible view of it and recommend the adoption of this Bill. I resigned my commission in the Volunteers because I felt that that force was being used by the Government in order to save them from doing what they would have to do if the Volunteers did not exist, namely, pass this Bill and put the Militia Ballot into force. The new policy adopted by the Government in regard to the Volunteers has reduced the number of that force by 100,000 men. Instead of having a small force highly trained, the right idea should be to have a large body of Volunteers sufficiently trained, so that when the alarm came they would, by a little drilling, be efficient to take their place in home defence. I think the view that has been taken by the War Office of the place in our defensive position of the Volunteers is an entirely wrong one. The whole spirit of the Volunteer force is that it is for home defence, and for home defence only; and yet the Government are encouraging them to go abroad. I know as regards my own regiment that they sent out one or two gallant companies to South Africa, but I contend that before they went out they should have resigned, their positions in the Volunteer regiments, because otherwise you have the "stay-at-homes" and the "go-and fights," which is contrary to the whole spirit of the force. Let us hope that through the action of the Commission to which my noble friend has referred some good may be done. I formally move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved—
  "That the Bill be now read 2a."—( The Earl of wemyss.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE For WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose, of following the noble Earl

  1037
  in the remarks he has addressed to the House, because I think that the noble Duke behind me has given a sufficient reason for not consenting to the Second Reading of this Bill. I only rise to repeat to the noble Earl what I stated earlier in this session, that it is really not quite fair to His Majesty's Government, or to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who introduced this Bill when Minister for War, to say that having introduced the Bill the noble Marquess then left it on the Table without making any effort to induce the Government to proceed with it. The noble Marquess stated distinctly on introducing the Bill that it was a tentative measure, that he did not intend to proceed with it, and could not. hold out any hope that it would be proceeded with that session, or in any subsequent session. If the noble Earl supposes that this Bill will remedy the present chaotic and discordant series of Acts of Parliament which have to do with the Militia Ballot and the Militia, he is very much mistaken. All that this Bill does is to show prominently certain lines on which it will be necessary, if it is ever intended to put the Militia Ballot into force, to prepare a further Bill, which will have to take the form of a consolidating Bill. Since I have been at the War Office this subject has been very thoroughly gone into, and if such a Bill is to be brought in it will have to be one of about ninety clauses, and containing some sixty or seventy pages.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg to withdraw the Bill, but I think the noble Earl's explanation makes the Government case much worse.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that marriage with the sister or niece of a deceased wife has been recently legalised in the British East African Protectorate; and if so, upon what grounds this step has been taken.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, in the absence of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is in Ireland in attendance on His Majesty, I have been asked to reply to the Question of the noble Duke. It is perfectly correct to say that an ordinance is in existence in the British East African Protectorate which enables a man to marry his deceased wife's sister or niece. The noble Duke asks upon what grounds it was passed. It has been in existence in South Nigeria for some years, and when the Foreign Office were framing marriage laws for East Africa they took as their model the South Nigerian marriage law. The law in South Nigeria is taken from ordinances which were in existence in Lagos and the Gold Coast territory. Those laws were sanctioned by the late Lord Derby, who allowed the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister to be settled by local opinion and local considerations. In that way the law in Africa, both East and West, has grown up, and is similar on both sides of the continent.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a word in connection with the answer which has just been given. I venture to hope that this matter will be further looked into, and that care will be taken that we do not inadvertently drift into a condition of marriage-law legislation as regards the Protectorates in Africa, which would affect very much larger and more far-reaching questions than marriage with a deceased wife's sister. I have had the advantage, by the courtesy of the noble Earl, of looking at the ordinance, which is now, I understand, the law in the East African Protectorate. I understand that it was only in consequence of a protest which has reached the Commissioner in Uganda that the ordinance is not also enforced there; and that both in Uganda and in the East African Protectorate those who are most conversant with the whole question of civilisation for these people feel that the ordinances, as at present drafted, are almost absurdly inapplicable to the circumstances. This is quite apart

  1039
  from any mere question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. True, there are some 80,000 Christians in the Protectorate of Uganda consisting entirely of converts to the Anglican Church or to the Roman Catholic Church, and they are at this moment practically unanimous in disapproving of and disliking this particular provision. But the question is a much larger one. The new Marriage Law is, I am told, absolutely contrary to a treaty which had been made with the native chiefs to the effect that no additional tax should be imposed upon them except under certain peculiar circumstances therein described. This ordinance does impose an additional tax upon them, and, in short, the matter seems to have been enacted originally in one place and to meet one condition of things, and afterwards applied to quite a different sort of region and to another condition of things altogether. All I would ask is, that the matter should be most carefully looked into, so that before the law is made operative over a wider region than at present, we may, at least, understand that every inquiry has been made among those most cognisant of the position of affairs.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether there is the smallest hope of recalling this ordinance in the East African Protectorate, and whether he will give some pledge to the House, on behalf of the Government, that such ordinances will not be enacted in the future for other protectorates without Parliament having, at any rate, some opportunity of expressing its opinion. It seems to me that the answer which my noble friend has given makes the matter a good deal more serious. We are told that this legislation was inaugurated in Lagos because of local feeling and local consideration. I should like to know what the local considerations in regard to Lagos are. As to local feeling, in most of these parts of Africa they are very strongly in favour of a good many things which are un-desirable. Probably local feeling is in favour of polygamy and other divers things which I will not specify. If you are to legislate by local feeling for protectorates in which the population
  1040
  is to a large extent savage, I think it will carry you a considerable way. As the most reverend Prelate has pointed out, this is not merely a question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister or niece; but I venture to think it is a most serious thing that the Marriage Law should be altered in this way without giving Parliament any opportunity of becoming aware of the fact or of expressing its opinion upon it. Although it may be argued that many Colonial Legislatures have sanctioned marriage with a deceased wife's sister, I would point out that marriage with a deceased wife's niece is going a considerable step further than even many Colonial Legislatures have dared to go. Surely, in the absence of any definite expression from Parliament of its will in this matter, common sense would insist on the advisability of maintaining the English Law in protectorates under the Foreign Office.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I should like to ask whether it is not the fact that every self-governing colony, without exception, has rendered marriage with a deceased wife's sister legal, and that these laws have been approved by Home Government. I should have thought marriage with a deceased wife's niece was one step. further off and was even preferable to legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Although all the self-governing colonies have passed this law, and although the House of Commons over and over again by majorities of two to one have passed a Bill effect that object, the noble Duke asks that the Government should come to Parliament before legalising such a marriage in any British protectorate. That would be casting a burden on Parliament which no one would desire unless it be to prevent particular legislation to which they object, but which, according to the view of the majority of our fellow subjects abroad and in this country, is regarded as wise and beneficent legislation.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In reply to the noble Duke, I believe the Foreign Office are considering at this moment the question of the uniformity of the

  1041
  marriage laws in all protectorates under their charge. The noble Duke also asked that before ordinances are passed there should be an opportunity given for the Imperial Parliament to consider them and rectify them. That would be an entirely new departure; but the noble Duke is well aware that opportunities always occur, both in this House and the other House of Parliament, for criticising the policy adopted in the protectorate States and the Crown colonies; and no doubt if the noble Duke, or any other noble Lord, wishes to raise the question he will have ample opportunity of doing so. With regard to the Question put to me by Lord James, I have not looked up the matter carefully, but I believe he is substantially correct in saying that in all the self-governing colonies marriage with a deceased wife's sister is permissible. But that legislation, of course, is passed by the responsible governments of the colonies, and although it, is subject to the approval of the Crown, it is in a different position from the ordinances which are passed in Crown colonies.
  THE LORD BISHOP or HEREFORD: What is the date of the ordinance?
  THE EARL or ONSLOW: January 1, 1903.
  The subject then dropped.

  THE DOUAI BENEDICTINES
  LORD HERRIESwho had given notice of the following Question:—"To ask His Majesty's Government it they are aware that a college for the education of British students at Douai has recently been suppressed and its property sequestrated, although large sums of money have been expended within the last few years by British subjects for the enlargement and improvement of the college buildings; and if they are prepared to make friendly representations to the French Government, with a view to obtaining some compensation for the great loss which has been sustained by British subjects" said: My Lords, since I put this Question on the Paper a similar Question has been asked in the other House and Papers promised on the subject, but, notwithstanding that, I think
  1042
  I may as well put the Question here, in order to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to consider the representations which have been made to them to secure some sort of compensation to the Benedictines who have been turned out of Douai.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the circumstances of the case. This particular college at Douai has been in existence for about 300 years. It was one of those educational establishments which were started in the time of Queen Elizabeth, as in those days the Roman Catholics of this country were not allowed to have their families educated in this country, and therefore several establishments were started on the Continent in order that these children might be sent there for their education. The one in Douai itself was started in 1615, and since that time it has been the property of the Benedictines, but it has always been considered English property. The Benedictines are devoted to educational work and also to literary pursuits, and therefore I do not see why there should be any objection at all to their being protected, as far as they can be protected, by the law of this country. I daresay your Lordships will remember that when the Benedictine monasteries were suppressed in Italy, Mr Gladstone interceded specially on behalf of two, on account of their historical associations and the literary character of their teaching. The result was that those two monasteries were saved, whereas all the others were confiscated; and I think that when that very distinguished Sovereign the Emperor of Germany went to Italy recently, his principal object was to visit one of those two monasteries.
  But to return to Douai. The college at Douai was saved in 1790, because at that time the National Assembly considered it an English institution. In its decree it said—
  "The Benedictines may he allowed to enjoy their property secured by them out of their resources and of others of their nation."
  Again, in the spring of 1793, it was recognised as English when, by the decree of the National Assembly, all the property of the educational institutions in France was confiscated. What Robespierre declined to do in 1793 has

  1043
  been done in the last few months by the French Government. I should also like to point out that at the end of 1793 the school at Douai was confiscated because France was at war with England and this school was the property of English subjects, showing that up to that time it was always recognised as English property. The house and property were taken possession of, and the inmates, numbering, I think, about twenty or thirty at that time, were sent to prison.
  This state of things continued for some time. In 1803–5, the Emperor Napoleon recognised that this property which had been confiscated was, properly speaking, British property, and he ordered it, with one or two other English institutions which existed in France at that time, to be placed under one administration, known as the Burean des Fondations Anglaises. Distinction was made, then, between what was French and what was English property. For example, at Douai, the church and part of the house was considered French property, because it had originally belonged to a suppressed Abbey in France. The remainder of the building was considered English property, and was therefore put under the management of this Bureau, to whom was given the administration of all English property. In 1826 a certain sum of money was paid over by the French Government as compensation to those English subjects who had sustained loss during the war between France and England, and claims were made by the Benedictines for a portion of that money to be repaid to them. The English Government of the day refused to pay this money over, and the question came before the Privy Council in 1826. Lord Gifford decided against these claims because, although the members of these establishments were British subjects, the aims and objects of the establishments were not authorised by, but were directly opposed to, British law. That was before the Emancipation Act.
  I maintain that since the Emancipation Act the giving of such education abroad is not opposed to English law, and surely therefore if these establishments are closed the property belonging to them ought to be recognised as English
  1044
  property, and some claim should be made on the French Government for compensation for their confiscation Since 1826 large sums of money have been spent on these buildings. I know one gentleman who has spent £10,000 on this building at Douai within the last few years, and what I ask His Majesty's Government to do is to represent to the French Government that, on the understanding and on the supposition that the buildings were English property, this English gentleman has spent £10,000 upon them, and that some compensation at least might be given to him. I put it to His Majesty's Government that this is a case similar to that of a company managing a commercial undertaking. If an English company managing a commercial undertaking had settled in France, and for some reason or other the French Government thought it necessary to do away with it, I think in all probability the company would come to the English Government, and we should recognise their claims to some sort of compensation, and should make strong representations to the French Government with a view of obtaining that compensation. I am quite sure that if any similar case happened in Venezuela, or in any such country, the claim would be urged very strongly.
  We are now on the most friendly terms with France, and I cannot help thinking that if remonstrances were made to the French Government they would be prepared to consider the special circumstances of the case and give some sort of compensation. It may be true, indeed, that in this particular establishment at Douai students were taught to believe in the existence of Almighty God and in a future life—doctrines which I believe are not now allowed to be taught in the schools of France according to the principles of the French Government. But it is not the case that any French students have been taught there. They are entirely English, and the principles that have been taught, I am happy to say, are the principles of the English nation. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider this matter
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne to reply to

  1045
  the Question of the noble Lord, and I would like to assure him at once that His Majesty's Government sympathise very deeply with the English citizens who have been turned out of their seminary; but they have chosen to establish themselves in a foreign country, and, like everyone else, they must he prepared to bow to the law of the land in which they are domiciled. The French Government have acted throughout in this matter with an evident desire to meet the wishes of the British Government as far as they are compatible with the law of France. M. Delcasse has informed the British Ambassador that if there were any binding treaty to which he could point, it would be received with the greatest possible consideration by the French Government.
  The noble Lord talked a great deal about the "confiscation" of the property of the Benedictines. As to that, I rather doubt whether, in the right sense of the word, there has been, or is likely to be, any such thing. At the present moment there is a liquidator in possession of the premises, but he is dealing only with the movable property of the Benedictines, which amounts to £1,000 or £1,500, and which will not much more than cover the debts of the Benedictines to the local tradesmen, which will be discharged out of the realisation of that property. As to the real property, that is held under the Bureau des Fondations Anglaises, to which the noble Lord has referred, but the Benedictines are not the owners in fee, but merely the tenants, and the Association law does not touch such property in any way, nor is there any reason to believe that the liquidator will sell it. On the contrary, I am assured that they are prepared to pay over the revenues to the Benedictines provided they are devoted to the maintenance of students in France. The noble Lord will find upon inquiry that there is no intention to confiscate the property on the wholesale scale he suggests. But I cannot hold out any hope that His Majesty's Government will press the French Government to do more for these English subjects who have settled in France than they would do for Frenchmen living in their own country.
  LORD HERRIES: What does the noble Lord propose to do in the case of the house bought by students at Douai?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It still belongs to the students, but they are not allowed to inhabit it.
  The subject then dropped.

  THE PRICE OF BREAD AND THE CORN DUTY.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the price of bread during the last three months, and to move for Papers. It is hardly necessary to point out to your Lordships that this question has an intimate connection with the shilling registration duty on corn, which has been abolished, and the effect of the abolition of which came into operation on 1st July. I waited until the 1st July, because I wished to see whether up to that time any effect, and, if so, what, was produced upon the price of bread, and I have now in my hand, through the courtesy of the Department of Agriculture, the Returns of the Board of Trade for the month of July this year, which I imagine must be as recent information as they are able to give. These Returns relate to London and twenty-five large provincial towns, and I find that for the last three months—that is, for May, June, and July—no variation whatever of any sort or kind has taken place in the price of bread. I find further, going back as far as 1st July last year, that only one change has taken place in any one of those twenty-five towns during that time, and that was in the Potteries district, where from February of the present year the price has been 4½d., and where in the month of October, 1902, and from then back to the month of July, 1902, the price had been 4d. I think that these figures are very important as bearing upon this registration duty, which has recently been abolished.
  It is hardly necessary that I should remind your Lordships of the history of that tax. Most of your Lordships must be familiar with it, but perhaps I may, in a word or two, recall what has happened. After the Corn Laws were abolished that duty existed up to the year 1869, when it was abolished by Mr. Lowe. In those days, fortunately, surpluses were a continual event, and Mr. Lowe, with that logical mind for which he was so well known, thought it desirable to reduce the last vestige of anything that could be called a tax on corn, and he abolished it. At that time the price of bread was not

  1047
  affected; the consumer got nothing by it, delivered most enthusiastic and animated but the tax, which produced £900,000 at time, was gone. Things remained they persuaded people that this tax was so until 1902, when Sir Michael Hicks Beach re-imposed the tax. He was in search, he said of some new tax which would produce a large revenue and interfere as little as possible with consumer with trade; and he re-imposed the duty, the result far exceeding his expectations. The duty itself amounted, I think, to about £ 2,400,000. The price of bread, expect in few instances, did not in any way rise, and even the volume of imports of wheat from foreign countries in ten months up to June 30 amounted to 67,000,000 cwts., in round numbers, compared with 60,000,000 cwts. In the corresponding ten months of 1901–2, while the imports of wheat, meal, and flour amounted to nearly 16,000,000 cwts., compared with very nearly the same number of cwts. In the preceding ten months. At the same time there was no effect produced, except in certain temporary instances, on the price of bread to the consumer.
  So pleased. was Sir Michael Hicks Beach with the result of the tax that he afterwards told us that he intended, when the war had ceased, not to interfere with it but to make it a part of the permanent taxation of the country. It was quite certain, of course, that there would be an outery against this tax. There are two sorts of politicians who are not likely to lose such an opportunity. In the first place there are the philosophic politicians, to whom the mention of the word "corn" is very much what the showing of a red rag is to a bull, and who appear to lose all their reasoning powers. They go back to the days precedings 1846. They decline to think what the effects of the tax may be on the consumer or anybody else, but they immediately lay down as a rule which must not be transgressed that a tax on corn, whatever may be its effect, must be an abominable thing. There is another set of politicians—more worldly minded men—who are well aware of the value of a cry, or of anything that can he elevated into a cry at a time when they are in Opposition: and both these sets of politicians did their best during the antumn of last year. Some of my noble friends on the from Opposition Bench.
  1048
  delivered most enthusiastic and animated speeches, and I daresay in certain cases they persuaded people that this tax was one which pressed hardly upon them and ought to be removed Their curse was probably as terrible a curse as ever was uttered; but the prosaic result was that the price of bread remained unaltered. I think that that cry was made the most of but I respectfully venture to doubt whether any practical advantage was obtained by all their endeavours. But, however that may be, the important fact is that the price of bread remained the same.
  Now, my Lords, that brings us to the present year, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I much regret to say, has abolished this tax; and his reasons for doing so, to one person at all events who heard him, did not appear to be very strong. He said that corn was an article of very large consumption indeed, which was quite true; he said that the duty was inelastic, which was true also; and I think he said that corn was a raw material. But the most important thing he said was that it lends itself very readily to "misreprersentation." That arguments, I am afraid was the strongest the right hon. Gentleman could produce, but it was a most unfortunate arguments to use. It was quite certain that the imposition of any tax upon corn would be resented by a certain number of the community, and that the Government of the day which imposed it would incur a certain amount of unpopularity; but all that had been found a very beneficial one, and had not resulted in an increase in the price of bread. Notwithstanding this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with, I humbly suggest, insufficient reason, abolished the tax.
  Does the consumer benefit in any way whatever by the abolition of this tax? It has been contended with regard to others articles—for instance, in the case of sugar—that although British colonies may be destroyed by bounties given on sugar, yet nevertheless over here the consumer benefits, and that therefore we have no right to object to these bounties, and things ought to be allowed to go on as best they may. In this case, however, this argument will not apply. The consumer suffered nothing when the tax was originally in force, gained nothing when it was abolished for the first time, suffered.

  1049
  nothing when put on a second time, and the experience of the last few months shows that he will gain nothing by its abolition for the second time. Who has profited? That is just what no one can say. Some people say it is the American railways and the other modes of transportation on the other side of the Atlantic. Some say that in some mysterious manner the consumer over here gains, but how they are unable to show; but the practical result is that the price of bread remains absolutely the same. It is, of course, possible that in some infinitesimal degree the bakers may gain, but, apart from the bakers, I do not know of any other gainer who can be suggested.
  All taxes, of course, are bad, but this tax had several merits so far as a tax can have merits. In the first place, it was a new tax, an addition to the number of taxes—a thing which every Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in search of for years. It produced a large revenue not felt in any way by the consumer, and it fulfilled the object of meeting increased expenditure. Do any of your Lordships think that we are likely to see any diminution of expenditure? I would remind the House of the new measures of public education, one of which we have passed, and the other of which we are now passing. It is as certain as anything can be that those Education Acts will mean a large and considerable increase of expenditure. I am not speaking without some experience in this matter, because I happen to be on one of the County Education Committees, and I can see very deafly indeed, even at this early stage, in what direction the operation of that Act is tending. There is another great source of expenditure—namely, the Navy. The expenditure on the Navy is now between £33,000,000 and £34,000,000, and Lord Selborne rather alarmed me, for one, by telling us, as he did not long ago, that we must expect a very considerable increase in that expenditure.
  Now, my Lords, what is the purpose of the Navy? Its main and principal purpose is to act as an insurance upon food. A Royal Commission is at the present time sitting to inquire into our food supply in time of war. None of us know. of course, what they may report,
  1050
  but of one thing I am convinced, that public granaries or any expedients of that sort would not be of the slightest possible value. If that be so, and if no I better expedients can be devised, we have to fall back on the Navy and take our chance; and one of its principal objects is to provide, so far as a Navy can provide, for the security of the' food supply of this country. Public education is given in the interests of the whole body of the nation, and for-securing our supplies of food the Navy is kept up in the interests of the whole body of the nation. Is it, therefore, unfair and unreasonable that to some slight extent, at all events—which was the fact under this shilling registration duty—the body of the nation should pay for better education as well as for the insurance of its food supplies? It seems to me that no fairer application of public money could be made. No tax was so little felt as the shilling registration duty on corn. Yet that revenue has been thrown, as I humbly suggest, into the sea, and I submit that the consumers of bread, the operatives of this country, are by no means the gainers as the result. I regret that this policy has been adopted, and conclude by moving for any further Papers there may be on the subject.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, my noble friend has not spoken in flattering terms of the views held on this subject by the from Opposition Bench. He alluded to two classes of politicians. I do not know in which category I should place myself, and I am not quite sure whether the policy of looking out for a "cry" is to be reckoned as the exclusive privilege of the Opposition. I rather think that the policy of searching for a cry belongs to some members of the Government. There can be no. doubt that there is likely to be larger. expenditure on education and an increase in the heavy charges entailed by the Navy. But I differ from the noble Lord in thinking that a slight tax on corn is permissible in order to relieve the taxpayers in other respects. It is one of the most injurious taxes that could possibly be levied, and I doubt very much whether those who are arguing in favour of the new fiscal.

  1051
  policy of the Colonial Secretary would be content with what the noble Lord has called a mere registration tax. In order to carry out their views, it is certain that those who support the Colonial Secretary would have to go further in devising new means of taxation.
  There is certainly a difference of opinion as to whether the corn tax has or has not raised the price of bread. In some places the price of bread has been raised, and in other places it has remained stationary. I know it is the opinion of many that if the tax had not been put on, the price of bread would have been lower than it was before. That is the answer to a great extent to the argument of the noble Lord. The noble Lord has moved for a Return of the price of bread for three months, but that would not be affected by the retention or the removal of the tax. There are many other circumstances which have to be taken into consideration. If we are to have a Return at all, we ought to have a Return covering a much larger period, and if we bad that Return we should probably find the same phenomenon as that to which my noble friend has directed our attention. I have not seen the Returns to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, but I should like to know whether the prices given are wholesale or retail. If they are retail, it would be a most fallacious argument, because the retail price of bread varies greatly, there being one price for richer persons and another price for poorer persons in the same village. The only scientific Return on which to rely is the wholesale price of bread, and I should like to know from the Government whether the Return is for wholesale or retail.
  THE EARL or ONSLOW: My Lords, when I saw the notice on the Paper I welcomed an addition to the ranks of those who were inquiring into the subject, and I thought that perhaps the noble Lord would express a hope that the Government would by-and-by furnish him with some data on which he could form his opinions on the great questions which are agitating your Lordships' House. But I find that that was not his object, that he was merely flogging a dead
  1052
  horse—namely, the Finance Act which passed some months ago. The proper time to raise this question was when that Act was before your Lordships
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Act did not come into operation until July 1. That was my reason for waiting.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: At any rate the abolition of registration duty on corn has this one advantage, that in the consideration of the fiscal policy of the future we start with a clean slate. I think that the noble Lord will feel inclined if we are to enter into the great inquest of the nation to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there are a great many more circumstances to be taken into consideration in the price of bread beyond the duty, whether it he one shilling or even more. The most potent factor that affects corn or bread is the visible supply of wheat. Threemonths, or even a year, would scarcely be enough on which to found a real judgment on such a question as this. Besides that, the cereal year should be considered as a whole, because the price always rises about now, when the old harvest is exhausted and the new harvest has not made itself felt. If the noble Lord will look at the price of bread and wheat in England and compare it with the price in other countries where there are heavy import duties on corn, he will find that it varies considerably, not by any means in accordance with the duty put upon it; and, further, if the noble Lord tries to make out that because the price of bread has not varied during the last three months that is a clear indication that the taking of the tax off and putting it on had no effect, he is, I think, arguing from premises which he is not entitled to use. The noble Lord attacked the Government for taking off this tax, which had been imposed for a specific purpose. The country was engaged in a great war. It was a difficult task for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know where he was going to get the finance to carry on the war. The income-tax stood at a high figure, and the working classes were not behind any other class in wishing that the war should be carried on to the end. His Majesty's Government thought they would not he doing wrong to ask even the poorest of the population to contribute to the cost of

  1053
  the war. When the war was over the income tax, which was a burden on the wealthy, was reduced, and there was naturally a desire to benefit the poorer classes also. In addition to that there was the question of reducing the cost of the raw material which the farming class uses for feeding herds and flocks. The Government thought that under the circumstances they should abolish the tax altogether and have, as I have said, a clean slate in the inquiry which is going on, and a perfectly open mind, and not keep on any tax which might have prejudged the question.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, even after the speech that has just been delivered, I am presumptions enough to think that I should like to say a word or two with regard to the observations of the noble Lord who has called attention to this question. Let me first say, with regard to the remarks of the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer stated very distinctly in the House of Commons that it was not a tax put on for the circumstances of the war, but it was for the purpose of broadening the basis of taxation. My noble friend Lord Camperdown is very much disturbed, apparently, because he cannot find that either the imposition of this tax or the taking of it off has made any difference in the price of bread. I think the noble Earl is in too great a hurry in drawing any conclusion with regard to this particular tax. In a question of this sort, to come to any definite conclusion as to what the effect of such a tax would by the experience of a single year is absolutely impossible.
  There are many considerations. Let me suggest one or two. In the first place, it is possible that the baker has used a less good quality of flour to make his bread with. In that case he would buy his flour cheaper, and keep the price of bread at the same figure. There are also the considerations of the quantity and the quality of the harvests both in this country and in America. It is perfectly well known that last rear the wheat produced in this country was not good wheat. It did not make up into flour that was particularly suitable for bread-making. On the other hand, in
  1054
  the United States of America there was a wheat harvest which was abundant in quantity and extremely good in quality. The regular course of trade was that these stocks of wheat should be sent to this country. They were so sent, and I think the noble Earl will find that the price of American wheat in this country was considerably raised last year. The makers of bread here were obliged to have it because it gave a better quality of flour, and it was necessary to have it to mix with the inferior quality of flour grown in this country. There is another thing which has to be taken into consideration in considering the question of price. Last year there was in the-United States a great famine in coal, and from this country large quantities of coal were sent to America; the ships that conveyed that coal required to have freights to bring back to this country, and large quantities of wheat were sent back in those ships at a low rate. That is another consideration which should not be overlooked in this matter; and I would advise my noble friend to study these questions a little more closely than he has done, and not he in too great a hurry in drawing conclusions.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In answer to the Question put to me by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, I may say that the prices selected in the Return quoted by the noble Earl who raised this question represent, so far as could be ascertained, the prevailing prices paid at the various places by members of the working classes.
  EARL SPENCER: Then they are the retail prices, and practically of no value.
  The subject then dropped.

  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the model By-law No. 3, lately issued by the Board of Education, is in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Education Act, 1870. I regret to have to inflict another educational discussion upon the House, but the noble Marquess is aware of the circumstances which have led to this question being delayed. The by-law to which I wish to

  1055
  call attention allows the parent to withdraw his child from religious instruction without giving any reason for it, and simply by giving notice in writing. He may withdraw him, not merely from the lesson in religious instruction, but from the school altogether. That is the all important change made in this by-law. Section 7 of the Act of 1870 only allows the child to be withdrawn from instruction of in religious subjects in the school, but does not allow him to he removed or withdrawn from the school. That certainly was the interpretation given when the Bill of 1870 was under discussion in the House of Commons, because an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham in exactly the same terms of this by-law was strongly objected to by Mr. Forster, who said—
  "He hoped the Committee would keep the clause as it was. It had been drawn after very great care and thought, and the object was to meet what he considered the real wish of the Committee, that whoever objected to his child's religious instruction or presence at religious observance should be able, without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school, to withdraw his child from that instruction or observance."
  Therefore, it was not at that time the intention of the Government to interfere with the discipline of the school. An hon. Member asked Mr Foster where the children would be withdrawn to for secular instruction, and Mr. Forster replied that he could not possibly say. In most Government schools there were, he said, class-rooms, and it would be perfectly easy to give the child secular instruction during the time that religious instruction was being given in the rest of the school. Mr. Forster saw no; reason why the child should have less teaching than the other children because his parent objected to his receiving religious instruction. The Amendment moved by the Member for Birmingham was rejected by a majority of 244 votes.
  I am quite aware that this by law is permissive and that it will only be adopted by those education authorities who approve of it; but, at the same time, it represents the policy of the Board of Education. It affects the children of Church of England parents no less than those of Nonconformists If parents withdraw their children for the purpose of employment, there will be no
  1056
  means of preventing it. I am all the more surprised that the noble Marquess should have authorized this by-law when I recall what he said in the discussion on an Amendment, moved by Lord Lytton when last year's Act was before the House. The object of that Amendment was to permit children, instead of being withdrawn from school, to have religious instruction of a different kind, in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That Amendment the noble Marquess opposed, and he quoted a sentence from a letter which had then recently appeared from the late Sir Joshua Fitch, and which ran—
  "The effect of the adoption of such a plan (i.e., that children should have religious instruction according to their various creeds) on the general discipline of the school and on the authority of the head teacher would be disastrous."
  Now, I ask, if that would be disastrous, what will be the effect of a by-law under which you have no guarantee that the children will get religious instruction elsewhere, and which allows children to be withdrawn, without any reason, from all religious instruction whatever.
  The Principle of the Act of 1870 is that religious instruction forms an integral part of the instruction given in school. In many cases, as the noble Marquess well knows, certainly in London, the religious instruction which children receive in our schools is the only religious instruction they obtain, and, as regards London Board schools, the withdrawals hitherto attach importance to attendance at school during religious instruction, and if the children cannot be withdrawn from school altogether, the temptation to withdraw them becomes very great, and religious instruction will, under this by-law, be considered not to be one of the most important subjects on the timetable, but an appendix to the timetable. Teachers and attendance officers have always done their utmost to secure the punctual attendance of the children at 9 o'clock in the morning, and this punctuality, of course, has a great influence on the regularity of the attendance as well. If you encourage a

  1057
  section of the parents to send their children to school at 9 o'clock, and allow another section to send their children to school between 9 and 9·45, the it is quite obvious that the children will hour for the school meeting is the hour at which secular instruction begins. It will be necessary to make a double registration of attendances; and children who are withdrawn from religious instruction must receive the punctual attendance mark if they arrive at for hour for the commencement of secular instruction. That is the first step in the direction of secularizing our schools.
  The inspectors of the London School Board have had this new by-law under consideration, and they are of opinion that the adoption of the clause enabling parents to withdraw the children entirely from school during the time of religious instruction would be followed more or less rapidly by the actual withdrawal of many children. This would, they say, especially be the case in the poorer districts, where the sense of parental responsibility is not strong, and where there is a tendency to utilize child labour at every possible opportunity. I cannot believe that the noble Marquess, with his experience, would wish to put the religious instruction at the end of the school meeting. It is quite obvious that you change the whole tone and character of the school if you deprive the children of religious instruction as the first lesson in the morning. Unless religious instruction is given by the headmaster at the beginning of the school, the school really attains a secular character and is no longer what the Act of 1870 intended it to be.
  Here I may, perhaps, say that the London School Board has always attached so much importance to the attendance of children at religious instruction that was one of the reasons why exception was made in the case of Jewish children. To meet their case of syllabus was issued securing that they should only have instruction in the Old Testament and in Hebrew. They do not receive any instruction in specific Jewish doctrines. The instruction they receive is in absolute conformity with the conditions laid down by the Act of
  1058
  1870, and out of the 508 schools, it is only given in seventeen. Jewish children do not receive any preferential treatment. The rule not to require the attendance of Jewish children on Jewish Feast days is in accordance with the Act of 1870, which specifies that children are not to be compelled to attend school on days set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parents belong.
  I think this is a by-law which the noble Marquess will do well to submit to somewhat closer consideration. Whether it is legal or illegal, it certainly constitutes a fundamental change in out educational system, and I am bound to say that if these are the first fruits of the Act of last year, if that Act has made this concession necessary, then I can hardly conceive a result more disastrous. If this by-law were to be generally carried out it would render nugatory all the results that have been obtained from the wise provisions of the Act of 1870. By a stroke of the pen the Board of Education would be inaugurating an entirely new system of education—a system which was deliberately rejected in 1870 when it was proposed in the House of Commons: a system which certainly was not contemplated (judging by the attitude which the noble Marquess took up on Lord Lytton's Amendment) when the Act of last year was passed, and which is, I believe, opposed to the opinion of the country, Which has never sanctioned any step to be taken in the direction of secularizing education. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  The LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: MY Lords, I desire to express my pleasure in finding myself for the first time in full accord, in an educational debate, with what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite, for whom I have so profound a respect in educational matters. I have no special anxiety that this by-law will affect Church schools, for those in London who take the trouble to send their children to Church schools are parents who will probably see that their children attend at the religious hour. I feel that there is great danger that the by-law may

  1059
  do harm to the religious character of the teaching throughout England. Families to whom every shilling is of importance will be tempted to send children late to school. I also think that religion will be depreciated in the eyes of the children when it no longer occupies any part of their school hours. The by-law is unnecessary. The conscience clause, I rejoice to say, is in active force in the Church schools, as is proved by the statistics of withdrawals, the number of which have increased from 985 in 1887, to 2,3866 in 1902, comprising 999 Jewish children and 128 Roman Catholic children. I rejoice in that, because it shows that conscience clause is really a safeguard. My great fear is that under this by-law we shall have the religious hour stamped out throughout England. We have an object lesson in this matter in what is taking place in Australia and New Zealand, where Churchmen and Nonconformists are united in begging from their Governments some form of religious instructions in their schools for the good of the country. I, therefore hope that the noble Lord will see some way to modify the by-law, or will be able to send some instruction with it to prevent the religious hour being taken away.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, as an old member of two School Boards and a manager of many schools, I should feel considerable alarm if this by-law were carried into effect throughout the country. I cannot grasp the idea which is at the root of the by-law, or understand on what advice it had been adopted, but I am afraid it will be attended with disastrous results. Poor families will be tempted to keep children from school for the payment that can be got for their services, small tradesmen will keep them at work till the later hour, local quarrels may be got up by combinations of persons hostile to religious teaching in a particular school, increased difficulties will be put in the way of the attendance officers, and teachers will be fretted and hampered by increased irregularity. The effect of this will be that many children will never see the inside of a Bible at all. It has been
  1060
  said that it is practically the first step towards the secularisation of the schools. The mass of the people, I believe, are strongly opposed to anything that would lead to that state of things, and I myself think it would be one of the greatest disasters that could befall the children of the country. I earnestly hope that the noble Marquess will be led to reconsider the advisability of issuing this by-law, and even if it is issued I hope it will not be very largely adopted
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I join in the expressions of concern and anxiety of the noble Lord opposite in regard to this matter. It appears to me that the operation of this by-law will very seriously interfere, directly in some places and indirectly in others, with what may be called a staple hour of religious instruction throughout the country. I am not sorry of the opportunity of echoing the testimony of the Primate given the other night to the real though limited value of the religious instruction which is known as undenominational; and if, as I fear we may, we find the incidental advantages given by the by-law are to be bought at the price of seriously impairing the attendance at this hour of religious instruction, I would say that the price is too heavy to pay. I do not find that there is any difficulty in the poor districts of South London in getting the children to attend school for the hour of religious instruction; the difficulty is met with, curiously enough, in the suburban districts, where people want boots blacked and knives cleaned, and find boys convenient for the purpose. It would be very serious indeed if a tendency so real as that should be assisted by the action of this by-law. It is quite possible that in places the by-law may serve a very valuable purpose. Where the action of the Act of last year really presses hardly on Nonconformists, we should be only too glad to welcome anything which would relieve them from coming under a teaching to which they object. But I hope that the greatest care will be taken in the administration of the by-law, and that its operation will be closely watched.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION(The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, my first duty is to express my gratitude to the noble Lord opposite for the very kind consideration he showed me in postponing this Question until to-day to suit my convenience. The noble Lord seems to think that this by-law is an infringement of section 7 of the Act of 1870, but it does not touch that section in the slightest degree. In support of that I can quote the opinion of Dr. Macnamara, M.P., a gentleman who, I think, will be regarded by noble Lords opposite as an educational expert. Dr. Macnamara writes—
  "The new by-law has been before neither the London School Board nor the School Attendance Committee. My view of it is (1) it is in strict accord with the Act of 1870; (2) its form can, of course, be varied by any local authority, subject to the sanction of the Board of Education; (3) it ought to be hailed with satisfaction as likely, in single-school areas especially, to soften the asperities which have grown up under last year's Act. Lord Londonderry is quite at liberty to quote my opinion for what it is worth."
  I have consulted the Attorney-General, and the opinion of the Attorney-General, expressed in my own language, is as follows: Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, under which by-laws are made, empowers local authorities to make by-laws subject to the approval of the Board of Education for the purpose, inter alia (1)of requiring parents to cause their children to attend school; and (2) of determining the time during which children are so to attend school. The practice of the Education Department and the Board of Education has hitherto been only to approve a by-law which required a child to attend the whole time the school was open (subject to the right of withdrawal from religious instruction); but so far as the question of legality goes there is nothing to prevent a school authority from prescribing given number of hours or certain days of the week, provided the Board of Education approved such a by-law. A by-law determining that in the case of certain children the time shall be the time of secular instruction only, in no way contravenes Section 74 of the Act of 1870; all that is legally required is that the by-law shall not
  1062
  prevent the withdrawal of the child from religious instruction This new clause certainly does not do so.
  The conscience clause (Section 7 of the Act of 1870) neither requires nor prohibits the attendance of the child at school during the time of religious instruction. All it requires is that his attendance at religious instruction shall not be a condition of his being admitted to or continuing in the school, and that if withdrawn from religious instruction he shall not forfeit the other benefits of the school. It is wrong to say that it is illegal to require that the parents' withdrawal of the child from school during religious instruction shall be in writing. The by-law does not affect this right of withdrawal. If the authority suspects that a parent Is asking to withdraw his child on wrong grounds, or that parents are likely to do this, they could require the parent to state that he withdraws his child in order to get religious instruction elsewhere, and the authority could, if it chose, frame its by-laws so as to grant the withdrawal from the school upon such ground only, and for such purposes only. This would not in fringe the conscience clause since it would only bring things back to the state which has prevailed from 1870 to 1903, and would make the child come to school though it would not have to hear the religious instruction.
  That is my reply to the legal part of the Question addressed to me by the noble Lord; but there are other points on which I should like to say a few words. It has been objected that parents may make use of the right of withdrawal to get their children away from school during the hours devoted to religious instruction to employ them for their own advantage. But I would remind the noble Lord that the by-law is purely optional. It rests with the local authority to assure itself, before adopting it, that there will be no abuse. The intention of this by-law is to provide facilities for children receiving religious instruction in accordance with the views of their parents, and in places approved by their parents.
  While we were drafting the new form of by-law in April this year, we received an application from many schools in Eastbourne exactly on the lines of the

  1063
  proposed by-law The schools in Eastbourne are mostly Church schools. This is what was proposed:
  "Nonconformist parents will be invited to withdraw their children during the time—9 to 9.40 a.m.—devoted to religious instruction. Arrangements will be made at four different centres, close to the four leading schools, to have religious instruction given to all children who care to come, by four ministers of the Free Churches from 9 to 9.30. In this way the children will get to the schools by 9.45."
  I ought to say that the Vicar of East-bourne gladly supported the proposal, and I believe that amicable arrangements were come to in the matter. It is to facilitate this kind of thing that the change in the by-law is proposed. Hitherto, under the old by-law, every child was compelled to attend school during the hours of religious instruction, and children for whom exemption from the religious instruction was claimed under the conscience clause had to sit in the school and presumably do some other work. The new by-law will permit such children to have religious instruction elsewhere. In the view of the Board of Education and of the Government, the new form of exemption is a fairer arrangement, and we have every hope that it will be properly used and not abused. I fully agree with the right rev. Prelates that there is a danger of its being abused, but we have, I hope, adopted safeguards. I wish to say, in the first place, that no; authority need adopt the new form of by-law unless it pleases; secondly, that a county authority can adopt it for some of the villages in its area and not for others, if it thinks desirable; and, thirdly, that it can revert to the old form at any time if it finds on experience that it is being abused. The right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, stated that in his opinion children would lose religious instruction under this new by-law. I cannot think that any harm will be done to children whose parents desire that they should receive this instruction.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the by-law requires that the parents must say that the withdrawal is for the purpose of religious instruction elsewhere.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No. But in sending out copies of the new form of by-law for the consideration of local authorities, we are warning them of the possible danger of its being abused, and are sending with every copy of the by-law a circular signed by Mr. Morant, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Education, to the following effect—
  "Board of Education
  " Whitehall, S. W.
  "Sir, in forwarding the enclosed copy of a form of by-laws suggested for the use of Local Authorities, the Board of Education desire me to call attention to the importance of watching the operation of Section 3, as to the time of attendance, in the event of your Council considering it advisable to adopt that portion of the section which enables a parent, after notification in writing, to withdraw a child from school during the time given to religions instruction.
  "In suggesting the addition of this provision to the terms of the by-law hitherto in general use the Board have in view the importance of meeting the conscientious objections of parents who desire their children to receive religions instruction elsewhere than at the school.
  "If however, it should appear that permission for non-attendance is demanded and used for other purposes, and that the children for whom this permission is asked are allowed to remain idle or are employed in secular avocations, the.Board would be prepared to approve proposals from Local Authorities who desired either to withdraw this privilege by reverting to the by-law in its earlier form, or to impose such conditions as would prevent its abuse.
  "I am, your obedient servant,
  "ROBERT L. MONANT."
  We believe that this by-law will give facilities for carrying out the intention of the Act of 1870, and that the policy of the by-law certainly does not contravene that Act. We believe that it will be the means of bringing about a better system of organisation with regard to religious instruction in schools, and that it will remove the possibility of what is called proselytizing of children. In making arrangements for religious instruction to be given according to the views of the parents, we believe that we are acting fairly to all denominations and all classes; and in response to the enquiry of the noble Lord, we believe that we are acting within our legal right in inserting this by-law, and we trust that, safeguarded as it is, it may be attended with satisfactory results.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882,AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read—
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to amend Section 52 of the Act of 1882, which was intended to protect bankers who had received in good faith and without negligence cheques on behalf of their customers. That section was supposed to be a complete protection to bankers, but a recent case in the Courts turned on the point of a banker allowing his customer to draw money before he actually received payment of the cheque, and it was held that he was then collecting it for himself and not for his customer. This Bill provides that—
  "A banker receives payment of a crossed cheque for a customer within the meaning of section eighty-two of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, notwithstanding that he credits his customer's account with the amount of the cheque before receiving payment thereof."
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  PISTOLS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments. A further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE LAW CLERKS.
  LORD MONKSWELL:in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the Paper, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor whether there is any foundation for the report that be has recently invited 100 law clerks to resign.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is not the smallest foundation for it. In a conversation between the noble Lord and myself, I told him that it was grotesquely inaccurate. I cannot help saying that it is not creditable to a certain portion of the Press that these statements should be made, apparently with the purpose of founding some commentaries or severe observations against noble Lords and others. I daresay that the person who invented this little suggestion only thought, perhaps, of reflecting on others. He did not seem to consider that he was reflecting also on a very hard-working, very diligent, and very efficient body of public servants when he suggested that 100 of them were being withdrawn by reason of their inefficiency. There is not the smallest foundation for the suggestion. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice in saying that I have no reason to suppose there is any lack of efficiency or diligence or energy in the public Department to which I have referred and I can only regret that such statements are made apparently with no responsibility. Although some newspapers have had no complicity in the invention, I do not find that the persons who invented these things are made responsible even to those who accept their information. I regret that such statements can be made without the persons who invented them being made responsible for their untruths.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next a quarter past Four o'clock.