Sitting of 26 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Cornwall (North-Western, or Camborne, Division), in the room of William Sproston Caine, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Thames Steamboat Trust Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (PENSION FUND) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 1).
Mr. KIMBER reported from the Committee on Group No. 1 of Railway Bills, That, there being no business ready for the consideration of the Committee, they had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Tables

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP NO. 2).
Captain BOWLES reported from the Committee on Group No. 2 of Railway Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Monday next, at Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Berks; Derby; Shropshire; and, Lancaster; to lie upon the Table.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
LAND VALUES ASSESSMENT AND RATING BILL.
Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Petitions against: from Leighton Buzzard; Newtown and Llanidloes; Mary port; and, Hastings: to lie upon the Table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
Petitions against establishment: from Grantown; and, Dingwall; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from Soham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SITE VALUES OF INSANITARY AREAS.
Petition from Battersea, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
VAGRANTS (COMPULSORY VACCINATION AND RE-VACCINATION.)
Petition from Wirral, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (ENTERTAINMENT OF INDIAN AND COLONIAL GUESTS).
  Copy presented, of correspondence relating to the entertainment of Indian and Colonial guests visiting this country by invitation of His Majesty's Government [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 4th March; Sir Henry Fowler.] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 95.]

NAVY ESTIMATES 1902–1903 (STATEMENT ON PROGRAMME OF SHIPBUILDING, ETC.).
Copy presented, of statement showing probable effect on the programme of shipbuilding, reconstruction, repairs,
290
maintenance, etc., due to the re-appropriation of cash provision, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 96.]

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of Januarys 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of the Forty-eighth Annual Report on the Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland for 1902, and Thirty-Eighth Annual Report on Vaccination [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Copy presented, of Tables showing the populations of counties, districts, and Burghs in Scotland, with reference to the proposals of the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2944 to 2946 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing in respect of each asylum district in Ireland for each of the last twenty-one years 1882 to 1902, inclusive, the contributions towards the provision of district asylums and the maintenance of lunatics in asylums in the following form:—(1) Year; (2) Charges for maintenance—(a) fuel, water, and light; (b) salaries and superannuations; (c) clothing; and (d) other expenses, including minor repairs and upkeep; (3) Repayments, including principal and interest to Commissioners of Public Works, of loans advanced in respect of expenditure on new works, additions and alterations, purchase of additional land, etc. (exclusive of minor repairs and alterations); (4) Total of expenditure in preceding columns; (5) Receipts from (e) Parliamentary grant; (f) paying patients and other sources except (e) and (g); and (g) rates."—(Mr. Clancy.)

FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Return ordered, "showing the Fleets of Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, United States of America, and Japan, distinguishing: battleships, built and building; cruisers, built and building; coast defence vessels, built and building; torpedo vessels, torpedo boat destroyers, and torpedo boats, built and building."
"Return to show date of launch, displacement, and armaments, reduced to one common scale (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 322, of Session 1902)."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Ireland—School at Silvermines—Delay in Erection.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in October, 1902, the Board of Education made a grant for the building of parochial school houses at Silvermines, County Tipperary, and that the manager was informed that new plans would be prepared and would be ready in a short time; and whether he can say when the plans will be sent on.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A grant was sanctioned as stated. The issue of the plans was postponed pending the consideration of the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the general question of grants for school houses. A decision will shortly be arrived at in the matter.

  South Africa—Mining Claims Lottery.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the Claims Lottery advertised in the Pretoria Gazette of 5th April, 1899, by virtue of Article 35 of the Gold Law (Law 15, 1898), and for which some 30,000 applications were made by persons to whom certificates were issued, is to be carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Transvaal Government Gazette of the 6th February last published a notification that this lottery will not be carried out.

  H. M. S. "Highflyer"—Working of Boilers.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether any trouble has been experienced in the working of the boilers of the "Highflyer."
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I am informed that the only trouble experienced in the working of the boilers of the "Highflyer" has been a leakage at the nipple joints on the feed collectors, due to the worn state of the nickel rings from fair wear and tear. These rings have been renewed as opportunities offered, and the latest report from the ship states that the boilers are in an efficient condition.

  Improved Shooting in the Navy.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state what steps the Admiralty propose to take to improve the shooting in the following ships, the "Speedy," "Hannibal," "Vengeance," "Aboukir" "Cressy," "Bulwark," and "Canopus," in view of the results obtained by these ships in recent firings.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Admiralty are fully alive to the importance of good shooting in the Navy, and take all the steps which they consider necessary to improve it. It is the practice of the Admiralty, as well as of the Commanders in-Chief on the several stations, to correct and call attention to any cases of indifferent shooting, and to commend ships in which the practice is specially good. I wish to add that the conclusions drawn from the mere record of prize firing are likely to be misleading unless the circumstances under which the firing is carried out in each case are taken into account. Thus, in reference to the "Speedy" mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, while there were no actual hits on the target the Captain reports:—"Though the target was not actually struck, I consider the shooting was very good, as the men were severely handicapped by the motion of the ship and the strong wind blowing across the range."

  Kingwilliamstown, Cork, Postmaster— Superannuation Allowance.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention

  293
  has been called to the official correspondence in respect to the application of Cornelius Sullivan, postmaster, Kingwilliamstown, County Cork, for a retiring allowance; and whether, in view of the fact that this man gave a continuous service of nearly forty-seven years, the postal authorities will give favourable considerations to his case.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The conditions of Mr. Sullivan's employment were not such as to render him eligible for any award under the Superannuation Acts, and I regret that I am unable, therefore, to obtain any pension or gratuity for him on retirement. The appointment of sub-postmaster which Mr. Sullivan held was, at his own request, transferred to his son.

  Eastbourne Sub-Post Offices.
  MR. FREEMAN THOMAS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that certain sub-post offices in Eastbourne are situated in premises used as wine and spirit stores; and if he can have these offices removed to other premises.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) If the hon. Member will give me the addresses of the offices to which he refers I will make inquiry.

  Uganda Railway (Materials) Return.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will grant the Return, standing on to-day's Notice Paper, with reference to the Uganda Railway.†
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I should be ready to give a Return showing briefly the prices paid for rails, sleepers, girders, locomotives, carriages and bridgework. As, however, the total number of requisitions which have been executed during the past seven years for supplying the Uganda Railway with the various permanent way materials, etc., mentioned
  † The Return was as follows: Uganda Railway (Materials), Address for Return giving particulars and dates upon which the permanent way materials, rails, sleepers, rolling stock, and iron bridge work used in the construction of the Uganda Railway were purchased, the firm from whom they were obtained, and the prices paid there for.
  294
  by the hon. Member amounts to no less than 1,082, and as each of these again contains a large number of items, I should hardly feel justified in incurring the expense involved in supplying the elaborate particulars for which the hon. Member has asked.

  Export of Offals.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what has been the amount of the export of offals in the past ten months compared with the corresponding period in previous years; to what countries are the exported offals sent; and whether any of these countries compete with the farmers of the United Kingdom in the production of meat or of dairy produce.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The information as far as possible is being compiled, and the particulars shall be supplied to the hon. Member as soon as they are ready.

  "Labour Gazette" Return of Non-Fatal Industrial Accidents.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why the Return of Nonfatal Industrial Accidents in the Labour Gazette has been discontinued; and will he take steps to have the Return of such accidents published again as hitherto.
  (Answered, by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The publication of monthly statistics of nonfatal accidents has been discontinued, because it is considered that the figures are misleading, in view of the great variations in the standard of reportable accidents in different classes of industries, to which attention has been called by the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Notification of Industrial Accidents presented to Parliament last year. The annual totals will be published as heretofore in the Abstract of Labour Statistics and the Labour Gazette. If effect is given to the recommendations of the Committee, it may be possible to renew the monthly publications.

  British Capital in Foreign and Colonial Undertakings.
  MR. MITCHELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the aggregate amount of British capital invested in countries outside the United Kingdom, and the annual amount of income tax derived from such investments.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) I am unable to say what is the amount of British capital invested outside the United Kingdom. The profits from such investments, on which income tax is received, amount, so far as they can be identified, to rather more than £60,000,000 per annum.

  Duty Paid under Sugar and Corn Taxes.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before the introduction of the Budget, he will place at the disposal of Members a list of the various commodities upon which duty has been paid under the sugar and corn taxes, and showing what has been the amount of duty paid in each case during the present financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) I cannot undertake to give such a Return, which would necessarily be a long and difficult one to prepare.

  Marriage of Postal Servants—Income Tax on Joint Incomes.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether in the event of women in receipt of pensions due for previous service in the post office marrying a clerk still in postal employment their joint incomes are liable for income tax; whether his attention has been directed to cases in which the joint incomes of the two persons, being less than £200 per annum, have been treated as the salary of the husband for income tax purposes; and whether he can state the reasons for this action.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) In such cases as these to which the hon. Member refers, the incomes of husband and wife are aggregated for income tax purposes. Of course, if the aggregate income is
  296
  less than £400, it is taxed only on the excess over £160. A pension received by a married woman living with her husband is not a profit "from any business carried on or exercised by means of her own personal labour," so as to entitle the husband to make a separate claim for exemption or abatement in respect of it under Section 5 (1) of The Finance Act, 1897.

  Labourers' Cottages in Ireland—Unexpended Balance.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that there are still agricultural labourers in Ireland in need of cottages and plots of land, and that the unexpended balance arising out of the grant of 1891 amounts to £58,942 and cannot be used for labourers' cottages, he will consider the advisability of amending the law so as to make this sum of money available for the purpose intended by Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of the utilisation of this money or a portion of it, is at present engaging attention.

  Army—Home Stations outside the United Kingdom.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what military stations abroad are now reckoned as Home stations, and how many infantry battalions at present serving out of the United Kingdom are reckoned as Home battalions for purposes of the linked-battalion system.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No stations abroad are reckoned as Home stations, but fifteen of the battalions temporarily detained in South Africa have been estimated for at the numbers on the Home establishment, but are being temporarily kept up to Foreign establishment by drafts.

  Army—Chaplains for Troops in Scotland.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why there is no commissioned chaplain with the troops in Scotland; and why appointments

  297
  as acting chaplains are made after consulting only the Established Church of Scotland and not the United Free Church.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Owing to the absence in South Africa of several commissioned Presbyterian chaplains none are available for duty in Scotland. I am informed that the present system, under which excellent acting chaplains have been selected both from the Established Church and the United Free, Church, has been found to work well.

  Royal Engineers—Compulsory Vaccination of the Civil Staff.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that clerks of works on the Royal Engineer civil staff have been ordered to be vaccinated on penalty of dismissal; and, if so, will he state whether this order has been issued with his sanction.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Nothing is known of any such specific cases. The General Officer Commanding Home District, issued orders about a year ago during the smallpox epidemic that such clerks were not to be taken on if they refused vaccination.

  Birching of Youthful Offenders.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to cases in which sentences of birching have been passed by magistrates on youthful offenders at Durham on 5th December, 1902, at Slough on 1st January, 1903, at Worcester on 20th February, 1903, and at West Ham on 21st February, 1903; and to the fact that in cases where a sentence of birching would have been illegal, magistrates have induced the parents of boys to consent to the infliction of private chastisement at the hands of a police officer, and within the precincts of the court; and, if so, will he say whether the use of the officers and precincts of the court for this purpose has received his sanction.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My attention having been drawn to the four cases of birching mentioned by the hon. Member, I made
  298
  inquiry into the circumstances, but found no ground for action on my part, though in two of them I addressed a communication to the magistrates. I may add that in all four cases the newspaper reports, in consequence of which representations had been made to me, were inaccurate in material points. As regards the last part of the Question it is most desirable to avoid by all legitimate means the sending of youthful offenders to prison; and, in order to do so, magistrates sometimes discharge a boy on condition that the parents undertake that some personal correction shall be administered. In such a case the Secretary of State cannot interfere, nor is his sanction necessary to allow of the correction being, administered by a police officer or in the precincts of the court.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Undesirable Soldiers.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will arrange that commanding officers of regiments, battalions, and batteries shall be granted the power to discharge,, without reference to the War Office, any private soldier in their command whom they may certify in writing to be an undesirable character, whose retention would be injurious to the interests of the service.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No reference to the War Office is necessary in such cases. The General Officer Commanding has power to authorise the discharge of any man for "misconduct" or "on account of his services being no longer required" on the application of the commanding officer. It is not considered advisable to delegate this authority to the commanding officer alone, as uniformity of practice is desirable.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask whether, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's desire to decentralise the authority as far as possible, and in view also of the fact that commanding officers are wholly responsible for the state of the battalions under them, and are

    299
    therefore the only persons who have sufficient knowledge of the facts, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot promise to do so. If an officer commanding is to be put in that position, every officer commanding other units, such as a battery of artillery, will also be in the same position. We cannot have some 200 or 300 different authorities dealing with cases of misconduct—we must have uniformity.

  Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the training of the 3rd, 4th and 5th battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers has been fixed for the 6th July; and whether, in view of the inconvenience of this date for both officers and men, he will state whether the commanding officers were consulted before a decision had been arrived at.
  MR. BRODRICK: The time and places for such training are selected by the General Officer Commanding the district concerned, to whom the hon. Member should address any communications he may wish to make.

  Militia Officers and War Rewards.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that Reserve officers who have served for eighteen months with regiments in Great Britain and Ireland during the war in South Africa have been granted a step in rank, whether it is the intention of the Government to recognise the services rendered to their country by the Militia officers who served with the Regular forces during the whole period of the war.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member refers to Militia officers who were attached at home for eighteen months to depôts, Regulars, remounts, etc., or who served with battalions other than their own in South Africa. His suggestion would be very difficult to adopt, as these officers would thereby
  300
  be promoted over the heads of others who served in the war with their own battalions.
  MR. FLAVIN: How many of these Militia officers resigned their commissions when the war broke out in order to avoid going to South Africa?
  No answer was returned.

  Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many men have been discharged from or are under notice to leave Woolwich Arsenal since peace was proclaimed; and whether the men discharged or under notice are, in all cases, the extra men employed owing to the pressure of work during the war: and will he consider the possibility by a rearrangement of the orders for material and work of stopping the discharges.
  MR. BRODRICK: One thousand three hundred and seventy-five have already gone on reduction since May 31 last, and about 1,000 are under notice to go. The men selected for discharge were those whom it was least desirable to retain, or whose work had actually died away. No practicable rearrangement of orders would stop discharges, as there is a general shrinkage of orders both for the trade and the ordnance factories. The heavy discharges now impending are due to the decision not to discharge men during the winter.

  Native Labour in South Africa.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a letter from the rector of Thaba 'Nchu, South Africa, to the effect that a systematic-impressing of natives for Government and other work is carried on in that district, and that he has had to sign papers certifying reasons why certain inhabitants ought to be excused from this press gang system; and whether he will take steps to have it stopped.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): My right

  301
  hon. friend the Secretary to the Colonies asks me to refer the hon. Member to his reply to a similar Question on the 23rd instant.†

  Boy Recruits for the Navy.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an application has been received from the parents of a boy named Casey, engaged as a second-class stoker on H.M.S. "Vivid," praying for his discharge on the plea that he was under age when he enlisted; and, if so, will he state whether it is intended to discharge this boy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I have been unable to trace any such application, but if the hon. Member will send me the full details of the case it shall be enquired into.

  Whiskey Adulteration.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say what supervision, if any, the Government exercise in regard to the nature and quality of the whiskey and other spirits consumed by the public; if he has any official reports showing that the increase of lunacy and crime in this country is largely due to bad drink now being sold as genuine malt whiskey and brandy; whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the laws in force in other countries for the protection of the public against the sale of deleterious blends and other objectionable alcoholic liquors; whether the Excise Department possess a record of the materials used in distillation by every distillery in the three kingdoms; and, if so, whether he will grant a Return showing the nature of those materials used by each distiller for the year 1903.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Government do not exercise any supervision as regards the nature and quality of the whiskey and other spirits consumed by the public, the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act in this connection
  † See (4) Debates, cxix., 1440.
  302
  being administered by the local authorities. I am not aware of any such reports as those to which the hon. and learned Member refers, and I do not think that a Return of the legislation in other countries would be likely to serve any useful purpose. The Revenue authorities possess a record of materials used in distillation, and the totals are published annually in the Statistical Abstract. A Return of the materials used by each individual distiller would be a very invidious one, and I cannot think it desirable.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is invidious for the reason that it might be published? Then the honest man would have a chance.
  MR. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a simple process by which in four hours an equivalent of two years maturing and perfect purity may be obtained?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he had no doubt that individual purchasers could easily procure pure spirits if they went about it, but he did not quite understand what the point of the hon. Member was.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not the difference that this stuff is not whiskey?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg also to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any official reports showing that guarantees and statements as to age affixed by blenders to whiskey bottled in bond are often false or exaggerated; and, if so, will he explain why such marking of whiskey is allowed under Government auspices where age is a vital point; why the Revenue Boards of Customs and Excise refuse to officially guarantee the age of whiskey bottled in bond, which they know to be correct, but allow incorrect descriptions to be used by blenders; whether he is aware that certificates of analysis from leading analysts to give colour to frauds are often placed on the bottles, also under Government supervision; and whether he will issue instructions to put an end to all these practices in Government warehouses.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am not aware of any such official reports as those to which the hon. and learned Member refers. The question of exercising control over labels affixed to goods in bond is one which cannot possibly be adequately discussed within the limits of an answer to a Question. The practice of the Revenue Boards is to limit themselves almost entirely to prohibiting the use of labels implying any Government guarantee of accuracy, and to preventing any gross misdescription of foreign spirits as British and vice versâ. I cannot undertake to alter this practice, for the reason (amongst others) that, the moment spirits have been taken out of bond, the control exercised by the Boards must cease.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether a predecessor of the right hon Gentleman, twelve or fifteen years ago, did not give a Special Committee to enquire into the entire question which led to important reforms, notably in the case of stamping out grogging, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of a fresh enquiry to deal with the new evils which undoubtedly have cropped up.
  MR. RITCHIE: I shall always be ready to consider any representations made to me in regard to any inquiry into this or any other matter, and if further communication between the hon. Gentleman and myself leads me to the conclusion that good would be derived from such an inquiry I shall be happy to consider the matter.

  Restrictions on the Sale of Poisons.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home-Department whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill for the purpose of increasing the restrictions upon the sale of poisons.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The hon. Member will be aware that a Departmental Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council recently reported on various questions
  304
  relating to the sale of poisons, and that Report is now under consideration. Some of the recommendations of the Committee are in the direction indicated in the Question.

  Coroners' Inquests (Railway Fatalities) Bill.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to resolutions of the Trades Union Congress for several years past in support of the Coroners' Inquests (Railway Fatalities) Bill; and whether he will assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, and to its reference to a Select Committee.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): I can only repeat the answer given to the hon. Member by the President of the Board of Trade on the 2nd May, 1901, in which he intimated that he was not prepared to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.†

  Torrington St. Clements Schools.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the managers of the schools at Torrington St. Clements have determined to cease responsibility for these schools on the 31st March; and whether he will take steps to prevent the children being deprived of their education for the ensuing six months, and to free the parents from liability to prosecution for not sending their children to school.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The Board of Education are still in communication with the managers. In their opinion the financial position of the schools is such that the managers should be able to carry them on up to September 30th without incurring any personal loss; and they are not without hope that the schools may yet be kept open until they can be taken over by the local education authority.
  † See (4) Debates, xciii., 434.

  305
  But the Board of Education has no power to compel the managers to keep open the schools if they have no funds available for the purpose. With regard to the last part of the Question, the fact that there was no school available would be a reasonable excuse for non-attendance under the by laws.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: But the Board of Education have the ultimate authority in this matter, and as the managers have definitely determined not to go on with the school, cannot some scheme be devised whereby 600 children will not be deprived of their education?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The powers of the Board are limited by law, but they will do all that is possible.

  Jury Challenging in Ireland.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the proceedings at the Cork Spring Assizes in the case of Andrew Moore, charged with the offence of murder, fifty-seven jurors were ordered to stand by on behalf of the Crown; and, if so, will he say whether this action was taken with the sanction of the Irish law officers.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Fifteen jurors were challenged by the prisoner, and fifty-five were, by the Crown solicitor, acting in pursuance of the circular of February, 1894, ordered to stand aside. No special directions were given by the law officers.
  MR. FLYNN: Was not this prisoner a Catholic? Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to put an end to this practice?
  MR. ATKINSON: I believe both the prisoner and the deceased were Protestants. No instructions will be given to stop the practice.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: How long are these scandals to be committed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Cork Magistracy.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether consideration will be given to any representations which may be made by local public bodies on the subject of the appointment of a justice of the peace in the room of the late Mr. Benjamin Leader, Stakehill, Millstreet, County Cork.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM.): Recommendations for the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lieutenant of the county, who is always ready to consider the names of properly qualified persons brought under his notice.

  Scotch Licensing Bill and Consolidation Bill.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when he proposes to take the Second Readings of the Scotch Licensing Bill and the Consolidation Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The arrangements as to public business are such as to preclude the possibility of the Second Reading being taken next week, but I am hopeful that it may be taken on an early day of the week following.

  Convict John R. O'Sullivan.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial for transmission to His Excellency Earl Dudley, praying for the release of John R, O'Sullivan, a prisoner undergoing two sentences of penal servitude in Maryborough Gaol of fourteen years; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, of the good conduct of the prisoner during his first sentence of fourteen years, and of the peaceable state of the country, he will recommend to the Lord Lieutenant that the remainder of the sentence on this prisoner should be remitted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The memorial has been received and will be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant in the ordinary course. It does not come within my

  307
  province to make a recommendation to the effect suggested.

  Kildysert Police.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at what date Constables Brien and M'Lean, of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Kildysert were suspended from duty; and when their trial for perjury is to take place.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The suspension took effect on the 19th instant. The magisterial investigation into the charge preferred against the defendants was adjourned to Ennis Petty Sessions to-day.

  Clare Castle Harbour.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received representations as to the unsatisfactory state of Clare Castle Harbour; and whether he will consider the advisability of carrying out the recommendations made by the Harbour Commissioners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: One of the Harbour Trustees, who made inquiry, was informed that any representations they desired to make should be submitted in writing. But no representations have yet been received.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But I handed them in some time ago in writing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If so, they must have been overlooked in the pressure of business. I will make further inquiry.

  Newmarket (Cork) Licensing Prosecutions.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of prosecutions under the Licensing Acts brought by Constable Jeremiah Brennan, at Newmarket (County Cork) Petty Sessions, which were dismissed between 1st January, 1902, and 13th March, 1903; and whether, seeing that this constable has applied for a favourable report from his authorities in connection with these prosecutions, he will state from what fund are the costs of such prosecutions
  308
  defrayed; and what action the constabulary authorities intend to take in regard to this policeman.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of persons prosecuted by this constable under the Licensing Acts in the period stated was 142, resulting in 113 convictions and twenty-nine dismissals. There has been a material decrease in drunkenness at Newmarket during the past year, due mainly to the action of Constable Brennan, to whose zeal and energy the local clergy have borne high testimony. No costs were incurred by these prosecutions. The constable's application for a favourable record will be considered by the Reward Board.

  Knocknagree Licensing Prosecutions.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has yet been called to the evidence of Acting Sergeant Hourihane, at Charleville Petty Sessions, on the 2nd instant, as to the allegation that he was unsuccessful in a number of prosecutions under the Licensing Act at Knocknagree in August and September, 1902; and whether, seeing that five licensing prosecutions initiated by this policeman were dismissed at the Knocknagree Petty-Sessions Court, the Constabulary authorities will take steps to inquire into the conduct of this constable.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Five prosecutions instituted by this sergeant under the Licensing Acts were dismissed at petty sessions. But the fact in no way reflects upon the sergeant.
  In reply to a further Question the right hon. Gentleman said he thought the sergeant acted in good faith, and that he had no reason to believe that his zeal outran his discretion.

  Belfast Meat Contracts.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the contracts for supplying meat to the Belfast Union Workhouse, the Belfast Asylum, and the Antrim Asylum were last year given by the governing bodies of those institutions to one contractor,

  309
  Mrs. M'Bride, of York Street, Belfast, at prices fur the three institutions respectively of 44s. per cwt., 5¾d. per lb., and 6½d. per lb.; and that a flesher named Robert Burke, of Cromac Street, Belfast, tendered for the contracts at the prices respectively of 41s. per cwt.,? 5¼d. per lb. and 5½d. per lb., but that although his tender was the lowest it was rejected; and whether, in view of the loss to the ratepayers and of the fact that, notwithstanding the Local Government Act, 1902, the Committee this year again gave the contract to Mrs. M'Bride at a price in excess of that quoted by Mr. Burke of five-eighths of a penny per lb., the Local Government Board will order a sworn inquiry; and will he explain why action is not taken in this case such as was taken recently by the Crown against the Mullingar Board of Guardians.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information in respect of the Asylum contracts for the present year; otherwise the facts appear to be as stated. The Local Government Board has no power to order a sworn inquiry respecting the acceptance of tenders by the governing bodies of lunatic asylums. There is no analogy between the action of the Belfast and the Mullingar Guardians. The former rejected the lowest tender I because the names of the persons proposed as sureties were unknown to them, and they did not consider that the contract could be satisfactorily carried out at the lower prices quoted.

  Robbery at Tralee Barracks.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that safes were opened in the Royal Irish Constabulary Barracks in Tralee on the 28th February, and several sums of money taken; and whether, in view of the fact that similar incidents occurred in the same barracks twelve months ago, when a private inquiry was held, he will state the findings of this inquiry, and order a public inquiry to investigate the recent incidents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no safe in the Tralee Barracks, and nothing is
  310
  known of the alleged theft of money on 28th February. Complaints were made in November that small sums had been taken from the boxes of two constables, but no evidence against any person was forthcoming and no complaints have since been made. The inquiry hold twelve months ago had no connection with alleged larcenies.

  Administration of Irish Housing Acts.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, under the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts and the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, it is very often necessary for the local authorities to lodge in court small sums of money awarded for compensation, with the result that costs larger in amount than the moneys so dealt with are occasioned to the ratepayers; and whether he will consider the expediency of proposing during the present session some amendment of the law by which costs in such cases may be avoided or minimised.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The course objected to is followed in all cases of compulsory purchase of lands under Railway Acts, Public Health Acts, etc., where the sums payable as compensation are also frequently of small amount. There seems no special reason for altering the law in this respect in regard to lands required for labourers' or artisans' dwellings, and in any event I could not undertake to deal with the matter during the present session.

  Lettir (Kerry) School.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the application for the building of a new school at Lettir, near Glenbeigh, County Kerry, was first submitted; on what date was the information conveyed to the manager that, owing to the drawing up of new plans for national schools, the building could not be proceeded with; and whether he can now say that building operations can be commenced at Lettir, so that the school will be ready for use before next winter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The application was received in January, 1899; the necessary forms of particulars were not, however, completed by the manager until May, 1901. In March, 1902, a grant was conditionally sanctioned. In respect to the concluding inquiry I would refer to my reply to the next Question on the Paper.

  Irish National School Plans.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Report of the Building Committee on the new plans for national schools in Ireland was submitted in November last to the Government, and that, pending the Government's decision on the subject, all grants for new schools have been suspended; and whether a decision will soon be come to, so that progress may be made in regard to plans submitted to the National Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report referred to is a confidential document. Action on applications for building grants was necessarily postponed pending a decision on he Report of the Committee. I hope, however, that a decision will be reached very shortly.

  Gortnasate Harbour.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to complete the approach road to Gortnasate Harbour under the provisions of the Marine Works Act; and whether, in view of the fact that a large part of the male population of the district will, if work be not provided during this summer in the neighbourhood of their homes, migrate to Scotland within the next few weeks, it is intended to commence immediately the works contemplated at Gortnasate and Falchorrib.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have made proposals to the County Council in respect to works at both places named. Some little time may elapse before an agreement is reached with the Council. If an agreement is concluded, the approach road at Gortnasate must be made under the provisions of the Act, but not necessarily from its funds.

  Belfast Sorting Office.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why the duty of book officer has been entrusted to a boy in the sorting office at Belfast; and whether, in view of the effect of this appointment on the performance of their duties by the senior men, he will take steps to have the duty placed in the hands of a supervising officer as it is elsewhere.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I have caused inquiry to be made as to the facts of the case at Belfast, and as soon as I receive a full report I will communicate with the hon. Member. But I do not accept the view that the duty in question is proper to a supervising officer.

  Thefts from the Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to thefts from the cloak room in the Belfast sorting office, and to the fact that compensation has been refused, although the property stolen had been entrusted to the keeping of the postal authorities in terms of the regulations; and will he state why a lock provided by the sorting staff with the consent of the Postmaster was removed from the cloak room door by the department.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Two cases were reported in October last in which a coat was alleged to have been stolen from the sorters' retiring room at the Belfast post office; but though full inquiry was made no trace of the coat or of the thief could be found Some of the staff are provided with small lockers, and more will be supplied during the present year. The staff are allowed to leave coats, etc., in their retiring rooms; but the Department undertakes no liability in respect of articles so left. The lock referred to was put on the retiring room door by the staff in 1893; but it had to be removed recently, because some members of the staff refused to provide themselves with keys.

  Inch Strand—County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish a copy of the Report of the inspector who, at the request of the Board of Trade, visited Inch Strand, County Kerry.
  MR. BONAR LAW: No inspector has been sent by the Board of Trade to Inch Strand, but the Navigating Officer of H.M.S. "Collingwood" reported that he had made a survey and forwarded a map, on which is marked the high-water line, as noted by him on the day of his visit. This map is at the office of the Board of Trade, and I shall be happy to give directions that it shall be produced to the hon. Member, if he cares to inspect it.
  MR. FLAVIN: Surely in a matter of such vital importance as the stopping up of a public road, there ought to be a Report?

  Straw Island Lights.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain why the sectoring of Straw Island, South Arran, and Roancarrig lights have not been adjusted to bring them into agreement with the description in the Admiralty charts and light lists; or will he state whether notices detailing the inaccuracies have been issued to mariners.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I have been informed that the sectors of these lights are cut as sharply as practicable, so as to agree with the description given in the Admiralty charts and light lists. In this connection it may be as well to draw attention to the warning concerning cuts or sectors of lights, printed in all copies of the Admiralty light lists.

  Margaretta Shoals, Galway Bay.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say if a notice to mariners was issued after the changes were made in the character of the buoys marking the Margaretta Shoals, Galway Bay; and, if so, on what date it was issued, and where is it obtainable.
  MR. BONAR LAW: A notice giving particulars of the intended alteration in the character of the Margaretta buoys was given on the 1st of November, 1897, and as the alterations were carried out in accordance with this notice, no second notice was issued after the changes were made. A copy of the notice can be obtained at the offices of the Board of Trade.

  Kingstown East Pier Lights.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain why the sectoring and flashing power of the Kingstown East Pier Light has not yet been brought into conformity with the description of it as given in the light lists.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that, finding it impracticable to render the sector accurate in the Kingstown East Pier Light, they have decided to place an unwatched light on Muglins Rock, and that, when this is established the sector in the Kingstown Light will be discontinued.

  Irish Lights Board Boats.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Irish Lights Board boat "Princess Alexandra" was laid up at Liverpool for about twelve months, he will state how many of the crew and officers were retained on board and for how long; were they employed, and, if so, at what work; whether any of them were on leave, and, if so, what wages and allowance did they receive; and whether, seeing that the "Tearaght" is now laid up for repairs on the Clyde, he will state how many officers and men are kept on board.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the officers and crew were retained on board the "Princess Alexandra" at Liverpool for about six months, until the chartering of the s.s. "Cragside," when all were transferred to that vessel except the engineer and two firemen, who remained to take care of the vessel and the machinery. The Commissioners state

  315
  that, while at Liverpool, the crew were engaged in assisting in opening out and preparing the vessel for survey, and frequently transferring her from one berth to another, as required by the harbour authorities. All the officers and crew of the "Tearaght," except the second officer, are employed at various kinds of work on board, which can only be done during an overhaul. The second officer is engaged on coast work.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reason why these boats should not be repaired in Irish ports?
  No answer was returned.

  London Education Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to say when the London Education Bill will be introduced.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I can give no definite indication of the date when the London Education Bill will be introduced; indeed, I must qualify a statement I have before made that it will be brought in before Easter. I rather think it will not.

  Ministers in Attendance.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, do His Majesty's Government propose to introduce any change into the constitutional practice that a Cabinet Minister responsible to Parliament shall be in personal attendance on the Sovereign when absent either from the neighbourhood of the Metropolis or from the British dominions; and, if so, on what ground is that change proposed to be made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there has been that rigid practice my hon. friend assumes. I am not aware that there is any proof of it. Certainly, during the reign of the late Queen it was not the invariable practice for the Sovereign to be accompanied by a Minister in attendance.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I gather that my hon. friend is not prepared to make any change in the constitutional practice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, certainly. I do not in the least desire to change a constitutional practice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some rough idea what the business will be before Easter?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Army and Navy Votes will be put down for Monday, the Contracts and Victualling Votes for the afternoon sitting, and at the evening sitting I shall endeavour to make the Votes as uncontroversial as possible. On Tuesday the main business will be the Butter Bill, and the Army Annual Bill will be put down for that day. On Wednesday I propose to ask the House to get the Speaker out of the Chair to go into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates. The first Motion stands in the name of an hon. Member from Ireland, and he imagines the debate will occupy the afternoon. Going on with the Motion on Thursday, I hope to get the Speaker out of the Chair at the end of the evening sitting. I expect to take the Scotch Licensing Bill on Monday the 6th.

LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered and agreed to.

COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 97.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

NEW BILLS.
  PHARMACY BILL.
  "To alter and amend the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 to 1868," presented by Mr. Lough; supported by Mr. Marshall Hall, Mr. Remnant, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Wanklyn, Mr. Tomkinson, and Mr. Osmond Williams; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]
SMALL DWELLINGS (ACQUISITION) BILL.
"To amend the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899," presented by Sir Thomas Wrightson; supported by Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Graham, Mr. Peel, Sir Alfred Hickman, Captain Jessel, Mr. Moon, and Mr. Pike Pease; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th May, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

SUPPLY.
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,920,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and Expenditure for Royal Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad (including Purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901.
SIR A. HAYTERasked for information in reference to the increase in the number of military clerks and temporary clerks for the staff service. There had been an addition of forty-three, and an addition of £15,000 annually to the Estimates, and he thought the Committee ought to know the reason for it. As to the unfortunate accident which had occurred at the house of the Commander-in-Chief at Aldershot, he considered that the amount taken in the Votes for rebuilding was insufficient and would like to know if the contract for £5,000 had
318
been signed. He also asked for information as to the amount proposed to be expended with regard to the building in connection with the frozen meat store at Gibraltar, and also as to the additional £15,700 for the purchase of land and the use to which the latter was to be applied. Was any of the land intended for rifle ranges or manœuvres?
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he had understood from an answer which he received to a Question, that no decision had been come to with regard to the Committee over which Lord Esher presided, which considered the duties of the Royal Engineers. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had finally made up his mind to lay that Report on the Table of the House. He thought it was clear that the duties now demanded from the Royal Engineers might be far better carried out by the Civil Engineers. The greater part of the money spent under this Vote was expended on barracks, and it would be far better that this work should be taken out of the hands of the Royal Engineers and put out to contract, under the supervision of skilled engineer officers. Skill in the construction of roads and sewers was not necessarily compatible with an accurate knowledge of fortification building.
COLONEL WELBYasked for information as to the present condition of the hospital near Alton, which had been provided by subscribers to a newspaper, and intended for use in connection with the late war. His information was that it was put to no use up to the present, and that it was, in fact, a refuge for partridges from adjacent estates. Such an excellent gift as this was ought to be put to more useful purposes.
MR. LOUGHsaid that although this Vote provided for ranges, barracks, and other requisites for the Army, provision was made for exactly similar work under the Military Works Act. It had been assumed that £2,000,000 would be asked for under that Act this year, making with this Vote the sum of nearly £4,000,000—a huge sum indeed for works of this character. They were being

319
kept in the dark as to what was to be done under the Military Works Act, and he did not think the Committee ought to pass this Vote without knowing the total sum the Government intended to expend in this direction. Ten years ago the Vote was only £684,000; now the demand was three times as great. It had actually doubled within the last five years. This year the amount asked for was £1,920,000; of which it was explained that £100,000 was in connection with the war; therefore the net Vote was £1,820,000, or an increase of £286,000 on the huge figures of last year. He was an economist, and tried to inquire into these increases. Some of his hon. friends did not agree with him when he endeavoured to inquire into increases for the Navy: but they said that they would do everything in their power to inquire into increases in connection with the Army. This was a very serious matter, as it concerned a branch of expenditure which had been swollen more than any other during the last ten years. They had the Barracks Act ten years ago, and it had been succeeded by successive Military Works Bills; yet in spite of all the provision which had been made under these special Bills the House was now asked to vote this enormous Estimate. The Secretary of State for War issued a Memorandum explaining these increases, but it was of a most meagre nature. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee further particulars, and to justify the policy connected with such huge Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that £125,000 was due to the automatic growth of the charges for interest under these large military loans. But that left a sum of £161,000; and that huge increase ought not to be granted without the Committee getting further information. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should explain to the House the principle upon which the Government meant to proceed. If hon. Members would examine the accounts which had been laid before Parliament, they would find that expenditure under the Military Works Act covered the very same ground as the Vote they were now discussing. The same barracks and the same districts were mentioned; and not the slightest reason was given for treating one part of the expenditure at, for instance, Alder-shot under the Military Works Act, and the other in the Estimates. If hon.
320
Members would look at the Act they would find small sums of £20, £200, and repairs amounting to £192. Why should they borrow money to pay for repairs amounting to £192? The whole thing was a huge muddle.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said they did not borrow for repairs.
MR. LOUGHsaid that, of course, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but some of the items under the Military Works Act were exceedingly small, and covered the same ground as the Estimates. They did not know the principle which directed the Government in choosing between the two courses, and they were placed in a very difficult position in considering the matter. The real reason why the Government refused to bring in the Military Works Bill was that it did not know how much they were going to ask the House for, and how much they were going to spend. There would be no economy in the country as long as the House did not insist on having all the Estimates in advance, in order that hon. Members would have time to consider them. The Committee ought to pause, and ask for some justification of the extraordinary amount of the Vote, and also the reason why the secret of the Government had been kept so well with regard to the other head. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to relieve the situation by withdrawing the Vote until the Military Works Bill was brought in.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that the Military Works Bill was for the construction of large barracks. The Vote before the Committee was for repairs and maintenance.
MR. LOUGHsaid there were new works included in the Vote. He did not think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory; and the Committee ought to know what the expenditure on new works was going to be. He did not know what the policy of the Government with regard to the Army would be; but if any attention was to be paid to representation from hon. Members on that side, as well as on the

321
other side, and if there was a considerable reduction, then so many barracks would not be required. The whole policy of the Government ought to be explained before this huge Vote was agreed to; and in order to afford an opportunity, he would move a reduction of the Vote by £161,000, the amount of the increase.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,759,000, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Lough.)
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid be thoroughly supported everything his hon. friend had said. The Military Works Bill and the Vote before the Committee were connected with the supply of barracks, rifle ranges, and such things, and they could not make a division and say that the Bill was for new works, and the Vote for old works. Some very considerable sums were asked for new works in the Vote; but he agreed it did not make the least difference whether a new barracks was built or an old one repaired. The object was the same; and he did not think it was possible to draw a line between the Military Works Bill and the Vote. He was quite sure the War Office would not be able to draw a line in such a case. He would take one item to show the impossibility of discussing the Vote properly. Rifle ranges came under the Vote, but they did not know how much was going to be spent on them, as the Vote simply said that a certain sum of money would be spent on barracks and rifle ranges. There was nothing to show how many rifle ranges were going to be constructed In his own constituency the military authorities sanctioned a rifle range six years ago, but it had not yet been constructed, and there were hundreds of similar cases throughout the country. If there was another sudden demand for Yeomanry, they would again be raw and untrained levies, as the right hon. Gentleman said the second lot of Yeomanry who were sent to South Africa were. The most important point in the training of the men was the pro vision of rifle ranges; but they had no
322
information as to what was being done. Rifle ranges ought to be constructed under the Military Works Bill; but they had no knowledge as to how many rifle ranges were to be constructed They had a vague statement from the right hon. Gentleman the other day that the Vote only included sums under £2,000; but there was nothing about that in the Estimates.
The Estimates last year were not very full owing to the war; but they contained more details than were given this year. They had no details, but simply this statement that there was to be this general expenditure at Aldershot or in the Southern District! Was this money to be spent on rifle ranges, new barracks, roads, or what? No indication had been given of how the money was going to be spent. It was merely a lump sum put down. It was, no doubt, a very convenient method so far as the War Office was concerned, but it was anything but convenient to the Committee. He hoped before the Vote was passed members of the Committee would insist upon some particulars being given. Even if details had been given as in past years, they would have been made illusory, seeing that the main Bill, the Military Works Bill, was not yet introduced, much less printed. He did not say the Military Works Bill ought to have been carried before this Vote was brought in, but it ought, at least, to have been printed, so that the Committee might know what was going to be done. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division, and he would certainly support him, unless the Vote was put off until another day. He wished to see these matters discussed before they came to discuss the Military Works Bill. The whole value of the Army and Reserve forces depended on their capacity for shooting; their being good or bad shots depended entirely upon their having sufficient ranges to practice on. There had not been sufficient ranges for years past, and there were not sufficient at the present time. He asked if the noble Lord would, under the circumstances, issue a return of the new rifle ranges opened in the past two or three years, and also of those which had been closed in the like period, and what ranges were under consideration and likely to be opened in the next few years.

323
This was a most important point, and the mere putting down of a lump sum was no guide to what was being done.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was glad nig hon. friend had moved the reduction on the whole Vote, in order that the Committee might discuss the magnitude of this and similar Votes before going into the details. Two years ago he had ventured to predict that when the war was over every Department would retain a large portion of the increase which was said to be due to the war. Time had proved that to be true. They were not going back to the normal expenditure, and drastic steps would have to be taken by the Committee before they got back to the normal conditions of finance, The only way to do that was for the Committee to tell the War Office that they could do so much and no more, and they must provide the best Army they could with it. Individually, he thought, under those conditions we should get as good, or a better, Army than we had at present. These items were mounting up year by year, and the country was getting into a hopeless condition. The Committee had been told that there was to be a Military Works Bill, but they had not been told what the amount or purpose of it was, and they would not hear of it until they found this £20,000,000 was incorporated in it. These Military Works Bills were never intended to be anything else than the rarest occurrences in this House, and were intended to provide for such excess expenditure as could not be put on the Votes.
MR. BRODRICKsaid it had been stated over and over again the permanent loans would be asked for in this way, and not put upon the Estimates.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that might be true, because in recent years the War Office had tried to put as much as possible on posterity, and as little as possible on the taxpayers. With regard to these Military Works Bills being intended to be of rare occurrence, he would point out that in 1890 there was a Bill which authorised the expenditure of £4,100,000, and the reason he looked at this matter so seriously was that in his belief the top limit of payments
324
authorised by these Bills had not been reached. After the Bill of 1890 there was a lapse of seven years. In 1897 there was a Military Works Bill—
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Estimates before the House. At present he was discussing the Military Works Bill which was not before the Committee.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, with submission, pointed out that the Committee had been given to understand in both the Navy and Army Votes, under the head of annuities, that it was competent to discuss the progress of these Acts.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would be in order in discussing the annuities under the Acts, but he understood that he was discussing the Acts themselves.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsubmitted that the hon. Member had been discussing these Acts only so far as they referred to the items which these Acts covered.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would have been quite in order in pointing out that a great deal of money had been spent under these Acts, but the Committee was now discussing the Estimates and not the Military Works Acts.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was only discussing these Acts with direct reference to what were called the annuities in respect of the money borrowed. In the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, no less than £15,000,000 were borrowed by means of Military Works Acts, and now they were told, in addition to the £19,000,000 already authorised in that manner since 1890, another Bill was to be presented to the House. He agreed with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said the moment the war was over we ought to be careful to restore the Sinking Fund, and he hoped that would be done. At the same time he thought we ought to be extremely careful not to put to capital expenditure that which we ought to put to annual expenditure. His

325
objection to the continued introduction of Military Works Bills was first of all that the sums there were earmarked, and that it was a great mistake to spend this money on bricks and mortar rather than on guns and so forth, and secondly that this country was being led into a position which would result in a violent reaction in the future. We were piling up liabilities from which we could not hope to escape for the next fifteen or sixteen years. For that reason he was extremely glad that this Amendment had been moved, and he thought that discussion as to the details should be postponed.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that in the Vote there were two large sums of £148,00 and £432,000 respectively for barracks and rifle ranges. The question of rifle ranges was most important, because troops were no use unless they were good shots. The provision of rifle ranges for Regulars, Militia, and Yeomanry was very inadequate, and a scheme of thoroughly equipping the forces in this respect would have been well worth the attention of the Government. In thickly populated districts the cost of land and other items rendered the provision of ranges a more costly matter, but in other places it was not a very serious business. He hoped the Secretary of State would supply the information asked for by the hon. Member for Lichfield with regard to the intentions of the Government in the matter.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)said there appeared to be a slight misapprehension as to the purposes of this Vote. It was not for the provision of new ranges, but for the upkeep of existing ranges and any small expansions necessary to make those ranges safe. The cost of new ranges was treated as capital expenditure and raised by loan.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked whether the small expenditure for replacing ranges which had been closed would not come under this Vote.
LORD STANLEYdid not think it would. Such expenditure would legitimately be treated as capital expenditure. His right hon. friend the Secretary of State was perfectly ready to make a return of the ranges which had been closed and of those reprovided, but it would not be advisable to name the ranges at present under discussion, as that might render yet more difficult the task of purchasing the necessary land. With regard to the rebuilding of Government House, he was not certain to whom the contract was given, but the House was at present in process of rebuilding, which process it was hoped would be finished by the end of the year. All the foundations and so forth were still intact, so that the £5,000 asked for merely represented the cost of reconstruction above the ground floor, and it was believed that that sum would be sufficient. His Majesty the King had placed the Royal Pavilion at General French's disposal during the process of rebuilding, otherwise another house would have had to be provided. He could not go into the question of insuring Government property, but, in his opinion, such a course would involve a great loss.
The land for the purchase of which money was being taken was not at Salisbury Plain, but chiefly at Plumstead and Cork. The Committee to which the hon. Member for Bristol had referred was appointed last autumn, and its Report involved a very radical change in the whole of the Building Department; therefore he thought the Committee would not expect him to give any details until the whole scheme could be submitted. He could, however, say that as a general principle it was intended that the Big Building Department, although perhaps nominally under, should be a separate Department from that of the Inspector-General of Fortifications, and that the engineer officers engaged therein should be employed not for short, but for definite and long periods, or even permanently in that department. They could then be held responsible for any particular work, and if anything went wrong the authorities would know whom to blame, because one man

327
would be responsible for the work from beginning to end, and there would be none of that chopping and changing between people in authority which in the past had undoubtedly led to much waste of expenditure. That was the general principle, but the details would require a great deal of threshing out before they could be laid before Parliament. As to laying the Report on the Table, he did not think it could be laid down that where the head of a Department asked for a Report to assist him in his work he should be compelled-always to lay that Report before Parliament. The Report was meant for the private information of the Minister, to enable him to frame the best scheme, and to publish all Departmental Reports would be rather a dangerous policy.
The hon. Member for Taunton had asked about Alton Hospital. There had been some difficulty as to the terms on which it should be handed over, but that difficulty had been satisfactorily overcome. Certain works were necessary, including the construction of a branch line to run to the hospital. Whether a part of the building would be used for any other purpose he was not certain, but as a general rule it would be utilised as a permanent convalescent hospital for the forces at Aldershot, and perhaps for those in London. The hon. Member for West Islington had complained of lack of information with regard to the loan. But the figures in this Vote could not be in any way affected by the loan. The money now asked for was for making small alterations and additions such as would not come on the loan. It was also for the general upkeep of the service, and might be affected by past loans, but it could not be affected by future loans. The increase was, of course, slue to the fact that there were more barracks to look after and maintain, and that public opinion now insisted, and rightly so, on a higher standard with regard to barracks. The whole system of drainage, which in the past had got into a deplorable state, had had to be practically reconstructed. All these things were necessary, but they cost money, and it would be found that the vast majority of the sums asked for in the Estimates this year were for necessary, and
328
generally sanitary, arrangements in the various barracks.
MR. WHITLEYasked how much it was proposed to borrow this year.
LORD STANLEYsaid that information would be given when the Bill was introduced.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESbelieved that item (K), amounting to £552,900, did not depend in the least on the amount of money spent on barracks, but had to do with the loans. The Vote, and especially the part of it representing the loans with which Item (K) was concerned, had largely to do with fortifications. If one thing more than another had been taught by the recent war it was that fortifications might become, not only useless, but absolutely dangerous, and that, as a matter of fact, the intelligent commander of the future would keep as far as possible away from any fortifications whatever. The introduction of smokeless power had rendered it essential that there should be nothing in the nature of a line of fortifications to mark the place from which firing was proceeding, consequently he would have expected to hear the announcement that the War Office had renounced all idea of making fortifications in the future.
He was prepared to hear the defence now to be made for these fortifications which so distinctly marked their positions. Their late enemies in South Africa never used fortifications, and he believed that was one of the reasons for their success. The fortifications proposed to be erected around London had been surrounded by a certain amount of mystery, and he thought they ought to be reconsidered, and probably abandoned. It was generally known that fortifications were being put somewhere, but nobody seemed to know exactly where, and he should be very grateful for some information about them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them whether he intended reconsidering the policy of erecting permanent fortifications. What were the eastern defences of the Channel to be? He should have thought they would have been the sand at the entrance of the River

329
Thames, and the ships that would lie in the river. Apparently it was also intended to erect some fortifications at Chatham, for on page 70 he noticed there was an item of £136,000 altogether for this purpose.
MR. BRODRICK: There is only £500 taken this year, and £133,000 has already been spent.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was aware that the greater part had already been expended, but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to spend a small sum from this year's Estimates. He thought that was a mistake, and he suggested that the time had arrived when the Secretary of State for War should reconsider the policy of fortifications altogether. What did he propose to do about the fortifications around London? The right hon. Gentleman had told the world that he wanted 100,000 men to defend London and some other positions. Was he going to put those men behind fortifications? If so, instead of increasing their safety, he would increase their danger.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the so-called fortifications of London were little more than defended store-houses. Most of the expenditure which had been recently undertaken had been at Berehaven and similar naval bases, and he knew nothing of what had been done at Chatham. In this country they had been a little behind in regard to fortifications. It was a very curious fact that on the Continent in recent years all the guns had been put outside the fortifications. They were not allowed to go to them, but they could see enough from the water to convince them that the guns had been mounted away from the fortifications in the sand. He agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that this country was somewhat behindhand in this respect, and they were still allowing British engineers to erect fortifications with the guns inside, while other countries were putting their guns away from the fortifications.
CAPTAIN JESSELsaid that the hon. Member for Halifax had expressed his approval of the men and the guns, but what was he going to do with the men? Was he going to house them inside the guns? How were they going to manage if they had not got proper barracks? Hon. Members opposite were always full of the cry about the necessity of housing the working classes, and, after all, a soldier was as much a working man as anybody else, and it was quite right that barracks should be very much improved. He had been much interested in the speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He told them that a very important recommendation had been taken with regard to the officers of Engineers, and that in future it was intended to have a separate branch for construction of barracks. How could Engineer officers be expected to be architects, as at one moment they were doing telegraph or telephone work, and another day they were looking after the drains or building a fort? It seemed to him that it would be very much better to take the bull by the horns, and employ civilians altogether, as he questioned whether the Engineers could obtain the necessary training at Chatham. The Financial Secretary said that a good deal of the money asked for was to be spent upon drainage works. As far as he understood the question, barracks were never inspected until a crisis such as typhoid fever occurred, and the Government did not allow the ordinary sanitary inspector to enter within the sacred precincts of the barracks. There would be a very different state of affairs if the sanitary inspector were allowed to go round, for then a great many of the barracks in the large towns would be condemned. This kind of thing went on until an epidemic broke out, and then a wholesale reconstruction took place. A stitch in time saved nine, and in nothing was this more true than in the case of drains and sanitary arrangement. He wished to call attention to the terrible state of ventilation and overcrowding in the married quarters in barracks. He had heard of a case at Gravesend where a corporal and his wife and five children lived in one room and an inquest was held on one of the children. If such a

331
case occurred in civil life, there would be a tremendous outcry. He hoped the War Office would do all that was possible to prevent overcrowding. He did not know whether the Secretary of State for War would be able to tell them how far he had progressed with cubicles, and what success had attended them. He had always been an supporter of the policy of the War Office in this respect, as he considered that the life of the soldier inside barracks should be made a great deal more comfortable. For years the soldiers in India had had a separate dining-room apart from their sleeping-room, and he hoped that in the new barracks a similar provision would be made. The other side to the question was that when a soldier went into modern barracks and was afterwards removed into some old barracks, he was often very discontented. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would continue this beneficent policy, and he should be glad to hear how far the experiment with regard to cubicles had been a success from a military point of view. With regard to the lighting in most barrack rooms, there was one solitary gas jet for a large room with about thirty to forty men in it, and nothing was more melancholy than to go into one of these rooms at night. He ventured to think that the electric light might be introduced with advantage. He should be glad to know whether the new hospital on the Millbank site was to be used for teaching purposes in connection with the new medical school in London. It seemed to him that it was rather a mistake to put a hospital so near the river. He thought that a healthier site might have been got. He should like to know whether it was absolutely necessary to build so many barracks at our great military centres. It seemed to him that if they went on building barracks at Salisbury and Aldershot there would be absolutely no room left for the troops to manœuvre. The numerous small depôts all over the country, and especially in large towns, were expensive to maintain and useless for military purposes. In Birmingham there were barracks in the centre of the town which were formerly used for cavalry and now used for artillery. It took a considerable time for troops to get outside of the town from these barracks. It would be a good thing to abolish military barracks
332
in the centre of towns, sell the sites, and, with the money so obtained, purchase more manœuvring grounds instead of spoiling Aldershot and Salisbury Plain. He asked whether anything was being done to improve guard-room accommodation. At present the soldier had to sleep on a plank, and as it was important that men should be properly rested when doing their term of guard duty he thought something could be done in this matter. He understood that some experiments had been made in connection with guard-room arrangements. He was sure hon. Members would await with interest the result of the experiment.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the hon. Member for West Islington had challenged the increase on the Vote as a whole after making full allowance for the exceptional charges of last year, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman, before dealing with points of detail, should defend that increase in general terms. He thought the reasonableness of that demand could not be denied in the present state of our expenditure. He believed the country wished, indeed demanded, the most severe exercise of economy in all branches, but more particularly in the Army. He instanced the specific item on page 75 for the provision of temporary accommodation owing to the increased cost of the Army in South Africa. It was a large item, and covered about one-third of the increase. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be strictly in order if he took up that item and dealt with it at once. There had been some conversation to-day about Military Works Acts. He did not think it would be right for him to attempt to discuss the policy of these measures, but he might be permitted to point out that the reasons for these Acts which were given by the noble Lord and by the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to agree. The Secretary of State apparently would put all permanent works on loans. The noble Lord, on the other hand, would put all big works on loans. Now these were not quite the same thing, and he did not know that the House would be prepared to accept either. The justification of a loan was that if in the state of finance of the country for the moment

333
it was inconvenient to resort to new taxation, or if there were other financial reasons, then, and then only, they should resort to loans even for works of a permanent character. He would not press the demand which had been made from this side of the House that the Military Works Bill should be produced to-day. He did not think the Government could be asked now to say what they were going to propose in that Bill, but he thought they were almost bound to tell the Committee what was the estimated total expenditure under the existing Military Works Acts up to the end of the present financial year—31st March. That could now be estimated almost to a farthing. Further, the Government must be able to tell the Committee at this moment what was the probable estimate of expenditure under the Military Works Acts for the year beginning 1st April. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could tell the Committee how much of this Vote depended upon his own scheme of Army Corps, and generally whether this was to be considered a normal Vote. He was using the right hon. Gentleman's own words. He had distinguished between normal and exceptional expenditure through this session, and therefore the Committee could reasonably ask information as to how much of the Vote was normal and how much exceptional.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he did not think any of the observations made by the hon. Member for Dundee could be regarded as in any way unreasonable. He had asked for a variety of information, which, so far as he could, he would certainly give him. He thought there had been some confusion to-day, as had happened on some previous occasions. The view prevailed among a few members of the Committee that there was something hardly above-board in providing for larger new works by means of loans instead of Votes. He had made a defence on this subject before. He had not the smallest doubt that the system which was now pursued was the only proper, economical and efficient system. The system was carried on before this Government came into office. It was set on foot sixteen years ago. Up to that time the Votes for barracks—for large
334
new works—were put on the Estimates for each year. Under that system the Department never knew when they were going to build large barracks whether they would be able to get the money to carry on the work in the following year. Everybody who owned property knew that when work had once been started the only economical way was to complete it at whatever pace the contractor worked. The system led to two most vicious practices. One was that as money taken in one year and not expended had to be surrendered to the Exchequer before March 31st, there was a temptation to spend that money at all costs in the course of the year for which it was voted. This wholly unbusiness like system was replaced by one under which they came to the House from time to time and submitted their programme. In the present year they asked the House for half-a-million to pay the interest and sinking fund of the expenditure on barracks which would be used for hundreds of years. He believed that there was no expenditure which the Committee would grudge less than that for housing the troops. Roughly speaking, new works of a permanent description were built out of loans—that was to say, works of any magnitude—but small works were not included. They also thought that the purchase of land was a legitimate expenditure to be placed on loan.
The hon. Gentleman had asked him how much of this Vote depended on the Army Corps scheme. Now, one advantage of that great scheme of organisation was that it practically cost no money. He dared say that hon. Members would be surprised at that statement. They utilised every existing barrack, and it was perfectly true that they were adapting some of those barracks to the requirements of a certain number of troops under the scheme. But it was also true that for the first time they were building barracks where they were wanted, instead of putting them here and there in a hap-hazard way where it might be convenient to buy land. Qua the Army Corps scheme, there was no expenditure incurred further than to provide barrack accommodation for 54,000 troops, the number which the House voted additional in 1897. The

335
hon. Member asked whether this was normal expenditure. Barracks were the worst subject on which to talk of normal expenditure. It was in a sense normal expenditure, but the more barracks there were the more repairs would be required, and it was impossible to say what expenditure might be necessary from time to time on sanitary and other services. As regarded expenditure on loan: under the loans already running the estimated expenditure in this country for the year 1903–4 was £2,250,000, and for hutting troops in South Africa £1,250,000. As the Committee was aware, there had been large additions to the permanent garrison in South Africa. Up to 1896 the number was between 4,000 and 5,000, which was increased in 1898 to between 7,000 and 8,000—and the additional men were only temporarily accommodated in Ladysmith. Consequently sufficient hutting accommodation had to be provided for the permanent garrison, whatever the numbers might be in the future. He was sure that the Committee would feel that, having kept the men for three years under canvas, it was very desirable that they should be put under a good roof as soon as possible. Of course they were not providing for the whole number of 30,000 at present in South Africa—one-half of which might be regarded as temporarily located there.
His hon and gallant friend behind him had asked a question about the new hospital. It was extremely desirable that this hospital, which was to be the headquarters of the Royal Army Medical Corps Staff, should be in London to enable the doctors to attend lectures and take part in research work, which had been practically the main incentive to the large number of medical men who had lately joined the corps. His hon. friend urged that they should not over-build at centres like Salisbury Plain, so as to prevent the proper training of the troops; and he asked that isolated barracks in small towns, where the troops could not be properly exercised, should be abolished. But they could not have it both ways. He would, however, now give a pledge. The War Office had fully considered, in regard to Salisbury Plain, the necessity of keeping a very large area entirely clear, and he believed that exercises carried on there were well provided for. His hon. friend had asked a question about
336
cubicles. That was a difficult question to answer. They had tried experiments with cubicles, and there was a difference of opinion as to whether they were desirable or not. They were more expensive than the old barrack system, because they took up more room, and they made it much more difficult to keep the barracks clean. His personal leaning was to have a certain number of cubicles and allow men of good conduct to occupy them. He was in correspondence with the Commander-in-Chief on the subject, which was important, and which the Committee would agree had much to do with the comfort of the soldier especially when they hoped to get a better class of men to enter the Army.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was to be accommodation of a permanent character for the troops in South Africa. He saw that in the Estimates there was provision for temporary accommodation. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether these were to be permanent barracks, and what number of men it was contemplated they would accommodate?
MR. BRODRICKsaid that the matter was still the subject of correspondence. It was impossible, in the state of South Africa, to put up buildings to house 20,000 men in the time at their disposal; and what had taken place was that wooden huts of the best description—airy, superior, roomy huts, such as had lasted for thirty or forty years in this country—had been sent out to South Africa. At present the hutting going on in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony was estimated to accommodate 20,000 troops and the families of the men on the married estabtablishment. What they had been careful to see was that the accessory buildings, which accounted for a large portion of the expense, were adapted for what would be the permanent garrison only.
MR. RENWICKasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give a Return of the existing rifle ranges, I and those that were to be provided in the near future. He quite recognised that the Return should not specify the districts where the ranges were to be fixed, otherwise

337
the Government would have to pay a much larger amount for the land required. He had been surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee had advocated economy on every item in the Estimates. There were some items on which economy could be exercised, but that for rifle ranges was not one of them; and he was sure that the constituencies would grudge no sum in reason for the provision of these ranges. Lord Roberts, in the course of a speech delivered in 1901, appealed to the patriotism of the British people to make no opposition to the acquisition of rifle ranges, and to promote by all means in their power rifle shooting, on which the efficiency of the Army absolutely de pended. He agreed with the Commander-in-Chief, and hoped that the Secretary for War would give the Committee some assurance on this all-important matter of rifle ranges.
MR. BECKETTsaid he gladly welcomed the remarks of his hon. friend, and he would suggest to the Secretary for War that it would greatly assist in providing rifle ranges if more power were given to the local authorities. He had heard of a case in which a County Council was quite willing to acquire such a range, but owing to some technical difficulty it was found impossible to do so. He was convinced that if the local authorities were approached they would assist the War Office in every possible way in providing rifle ranges in great numbers, and at small cost. The right hon. Gentleman said that unless the troops had training grounds they would have to walk about with their hands in their pockets; and they all heard with satisfaction that more land was to be taken. That might not seem to accord with views on economy, but at the same time it would make for economy and efficiency in the long run, because efficiency could not be attained unless the men were properly trained. He also agreed with his right hon. friend in his statement with regard to raising money by Military Works Bills for providing barracks and other things of that kind. The Dawkins Committee investigated that subject, and came to the conclusion that it was a proper and economic method, and that the system of providing money by Vote was found to be a more wasteful and less businesslike arrangement
338
altogether. He was informed that fortifications had been erected on the Surrey Hills; and he wished to know whether they were intended for the protection of London, or for the protection of the division of which his right hon. friend was such a distinguished representative. His right hon. friend said that provision had to be made for an increased force in South Africa, but he did not understand whether that was to be an increase in the present or would be an increase in the future. He hoped it would be an increase in the future, as he was very much in favour of an Army Corps being permanently established in South Africa. He wished to ask a question about the £3,500 to be voted for the Commandant's house in Pekin. He thought that the troops were to be withdrawn from China; but, perhaps, the troops referred to were legation guards. [Lord STANLEY: "Yes Sir".] That was what he thought. As regarded expenditure he thought that a distinction ought to be drawn more carefully between what was permanent and what was temporary, and what should be charged to capital and what should be put on the Votes. Unfortunate results often happened when expenditure was charged to capital which should have been paid out of revenue.
SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid that a sum of £10,000 appeared under the heading of "Expenses in connection with Experiments." He should like to know what these experiments were. He should also like to know about the £5,000 put down for Brennan torpedoes. Were the War Office making them? If so, where, and how many torpedo stations were there; He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the quickest way of finishing a job once it was begun was to go right through with it. If he wished to increase the cost, the best way to do that was to leave off, and then begin again.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he wished to supplement what had fallen from his hon. friend with reference to the co-operation of local authorities in the matter of providing ranges. The attitude of the War Office on this question was not one which was calculated to promote the wishes of the House of Commons, or the general views

339
of the country. There was a very suitable camping ground at Great Yarmouth. The Corporation some years ago made it still more suitable; and as the result a large number of Volunteer brigades used it. On the recommendation of the military authorities the Corporation spent money in improving it. Then arose the question of ranges, and it was pointed out how very desirable it would be if a range was also provided. The Corporation at considerable expense provided a range with the sanction and under the supervision of the military authorities; and thus saddled themselves with an addition to the rates for the advantage of the public service, and also, of course, indirectly, for the advantage of the town. Since the new Army Scheme came into operation, the position was entirely changed, and a veto had been practically put on Volunteer brigades who wished to go to Yarmouth because there was not a larger manœuvring ground. The Mayor of Yarmouth, who was himself a distinguished officer of Volunteers, and who served in South Africa and was a man of practical experience, brought the Corporation to the point of trying to meet the difficulties which had been raised by the War Office, and the result was that the Corporation showed willingness to provide a larger manœuvring ground if the War Office would undertake to use the ground annually and restore the old condition of things. The War Office were good enough to signify to the Corporation that if they spent the money, amounting perhaps to many thousands of pounds, they would not raise any objection to Volunteers going there if not sent elsewhere. Was that the attitude which the War Office should adopt if they really wished to encourage the co-operation of the local authorities? He mentioned the case in support of what had been said by his hon. friend; and he would ask his right hon. friend whether, in cases where there was an indication of such willingness of the local authorities to co-operate with the War Office, a practical Committee should not be appointed to come to a businesslike settlement. In the particular case of Yarmouth, the War Office were losing a chance they would never get again. He maintained that it was not necessary that Volunteers should go every year to the
340
big camps. There should also be subsidiary camps; and when local authorities offered to provide ground for camps, ranges, and manœuvring grounds for exercising brigades, the War Office ought to give a better answer than to say: "Oh! if you spend the money, we will then see whether we will take advantage of it or not."
A very considerable portion of the Vote was devoted to the military arrangements for water defence, such as submarine mines and other things. That involved a special school at Chatham to train officers and soldiers to become aquatic professors. The cost of the military arrangements for local water defence was extremely large; and he would ask an assurance from his right hon. friend that he would go into the matter and bring it to the notice of the Defence Committee. These were charges which ought not to belong to the Army Estimates at all; and their work could best be discharged by retired officers and pensioned men of the Navy. It was very fitting work for them; but not fitting work for anyone else. The Admiralty paid large retiring allowances to officers and men who had qualified in torpedo duties; and they would undertake the water defence, which now cost so much, for a very slight increase of pension. With regard to fixed fortifications, they could not be justified when it was admitted that the first principle of the country was to obtain security on the sea. He protested against the ever increasing vote for land fortifications. The only other question he wished to ask was with regard to the appropriation in aid for Esquimalt, £500; he saw no expenditure put down for works at Esquimalt, but he supposed the money had already been expended. He would like to know whether the War Office expenditure there had come to an end and what its total amount had been, and how long we were to receive from the Canadian Government this £500 a year. He was interested in this matter because before the War Office took it over Esquimalt was under the Admiralty, and was garrisoned by marine artillery at little cost, but immediately the War Office took it over there followed a great expenditure. For that reason he wanted to know, since the War Office had taken it over, how much they had spent upon it.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid he rose to support the appeal that had been made with regard to the future provision of rifle ranges, and especially so far as the Yeomanry was concerned. Under the old system every Yeomanry squadron, and in some cases each troop, had provided for them a private range up to 600 yards at which very efficient firing was taught. That system had now been done away with, and at the present moment the regiment with which he was connected, the Earl of Chester's Yeomanry, had no range at all. They had a fine new permanent camp on Government ground for military exercises, but as regarded a rifle range, they had to go a distance of thirty miles by train to a place called Altcar, in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, at considerable expense. If they were allowed to find their own ranges, and if the War Office would be content with a range up to 600 yards, he ventured to say that the County Councils would provide an excellent one close to the camp, affording communication by rail or otherwise. But if it was thought necessary to have a range up to a mile, with two miles beyond and a mile on each side as a zone of safety, in a populous country like this, they would have to wait until the Greek Kalends before they found it.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether in respect in rifle ranges any experiments had been made with miniature targets and short ranges, so as to save taking troops long distances. He could not help thinking that with a proper system of miniature targets they could accustom the men to the use of the sights and the triggers and so on. He thought with a development of the miniature target system something might be done to teach the men the use of their weapons. He noticed with pleasure that suggestions had been made from all sides of the House, which, if his right hon. friend would accept, would increase the Estimates by £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. He was glad to see there were so many converts to the policy of the Government.
MAJOR SEELYsaid the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had raised the question to which he also had desired to draw
342
attention. He would suggest that a Departmental Committee should be appointed before any large expenditure on rifle ranges was entered into to investigate the matter. So far as he had been able to ascertain the results of miniature target practice, persons who had practised at these miniature targets had made most excellent shooting when taken to ranges of 500 yards; in fact, far better shooting than the Regular shooters at the range on that day. So extraordinary was the result, that he felt justified in communicating with the Commander-in-Chief on the subject. He thought if something were done in this direction, they would get better shooting at less cost. The same remark would also apply to smokeless powder and fortifications, because both matters depended upon appreciating the novel circumstances introduced by modern inventions. A Departmental Committee, therefore, should also be instituted to investigate and say how far the invention of smokeless powder had done away with any necessity for fortifications. He thought if that were done, results might possibly be obtained which would modify works which, to his knowledge, were now being proceeded with.
MR. BRODRICKsaid the War Office had concentrated a great deal of attention upon rifle ranges, and they were pressed on all sides of the House for an almost unlimited extension of them, which could not be carried out without large expenditure. Nothing was easier than to talk of rifle ranges all over England for all the troops; but since the Government came into office eight years ago they had spent, he was going to say, an enormous sum in providing rifle ranges and training grounds which had rifle ranges on them or attached to them. It was impossible that that sort of expenditure could go on. He did not think it would be possible for them to find ranges for some 800,000 men. If the trials now going on with miniature ranges proved effective, the problem of properly training the troops would be considerably modified. The subject had engaged the attention of the War Office, and experiment would no doubt give them further information. The difficulty about fortifications was that the problem of what fortifications should be was constantly changing. The

343
fortifications which were being completed at Malta were exactly of the type which had been pressed upon him—namely, what were called invisible fortifications, and were totally different from those adopted even ten or fifteen years ago. Naturally that system would be followed in other places. He had no doubt that in some cases, when it was a question of completing a fortification already begun, not quite of the newest type, or of beginning again at an enormous expense, the War Office had adopted the former alternative. With regard to the local complaint raised by his hon. friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, the War Office would only be too glad to avail themselves of the assistance of the County or Borough Councils when they were willing to give it. Their difficulty was that, though they pressed the House to give County Councils power to assist in national defence, they had been unable to find the necessary time for the Bill owing to the strong opposition of persons supposed to represent municipal bodies. If the local authorities had the power to lease or buy land and to let land or ranges to the troops and Volunteers, he believed the public would be the gainers. But, whenever the Government went into the market to buy land, every effort was made by everybody to get the largest price they could. It did not matter who they were, they all, with one or two notable exceptions, did their utmost to get a price which the Government considered exorbitant, and in almost every case the arbitrators were, on the same side. There was a striking instance of this on Salisbury Plain. A gentleman purchased certain land there for £1,100 when he knew the War Office wanted to purchase. He had not actually completed the purchase or paid the money over, and yet the arbitrator, one of the first judges in the land, gave him £1,650 for that which, he believed, he had not even passed his cheque for £1,100.
Then he would say a word with regard to fortifications for the defence of London. That question was raised three or four years ago, and he then explained that there was nothing of the kind in the sense in which the point was put to him. It was perfectly true that the military authorities desired to have, at certain
344
strategical positions, centres of earthworks on which to place covered storehouses, in which guns would be put at the right time. These works were of a very modest character as regarded expenditure; but there was no question of fortifying London in the sense suggested. It would be contrary to all modern ideas of military teaching.
His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth had said, quite truly, that these Estimates contained an immense sum for services rendered by the Army to the Navy. It was well worth considering, he thought, whether they should not work out and lay before Parliament what was the cost charged on the Army Votes for services which would not be involved if it were not for the necessity of keeping coaling stations for the Navy, and which was, no doubt, from one point of view, purely naval expenditure. If he might be allowed, he would deprecate too great an attempt to adjust a sort of balance between the Navy and the Army in this matter. This new system, of which they had heard now almost for the first time, of assuming that whatever was given to the Army was so much taken from the Navy, was entirely foreign to the conceptions which those who had to deal with the two services had in their minds. It had been constantly urged in the course of the last few weeks, against him in particular, that in framing the Army scheme he had entirely ignored the requirements and probable action of the Navy. Nothing was more foreign to the procedure he had adopted or to the ideas he had in his mind. And in that respect a quotation was made from a speech of his only a few days ago, which was entirely taken out of the context. He fully recognised that in the defence of this country they must take the Army and the Navy together; and it was immaterial, he thought, to the country at, large whether the expenditure was found on the Army or the Navy Votes; but as there was so much misapprehension on the point it was worth considering whether the Estimates should not be placed before Parliament in such a form that the cost of the maintenance of the Army proper was separated from

345
the expenditure due to the maintenance of coaling stations and so forth for the Navy.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the reply of the Secretary of State had not touched the point referred to by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, viz., that soldiers were doing sailors' work in connection with torpedoes and submarine mines. That went a step farther than the protection of coaling stations. In regard to rifle ranges, he was satisfied that the return promised by the Financial Secretary was the only one that could be given, but he was not satisfied that much progress had been made. The matter was of so great importance that it would be better to do away with two or three battalions of the regular Army or twenty or thirty battalions of the Reserves in order that the remainder might be taught to shoot. The value of the items of this Vote could not be properly estimated until they knew what was to be done under the Military Works Bill. The mere word of the Minister that too much was not being spent was hardly sufficient: in going through the Estimates something more was required. Another objection which had not been answered was, as to the lack of information: the items were not separated, and there was not even given information corresponding to that given last year. He should, therefore, vote for the reduction.
MR. LOUGHsaid that while the right hon. Gentleman had clearly explained several points of detail, he had not dealt satisfactorily with the main objection which had been urged, viz., that a proper line had not been drawn between capital expenditure provided under the Loans Bill, and the
sums properly chargeable on revenue. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to make the division clear by saying that new works of large amount were dealt with by borrowing. He did not object to the principle of borrowing for such works, but if they were provided for in that way it was to be expected that the Estimates would diminish. Instead of that, the Estimates had increased. But even the distinction laid down by the right hon. Gentleman was not observed, because in the Estimates there were items of £83,000 for a new hospital at Portsmouth, £17,000 for new workshops and armouries, and £41,000 for the purchase of land.
LORD STANLEYpointed out that the new hospital at Portsmouth was in place I of one taken over by the Admiralty, and for which the Admiralty would repay the War Office.
MR. LOUGHsaid that that made no difference to his argument that, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own rule, items of capital expenditure were placed on the Estimates, and he believed items which should be met out of revenue were included in the Loans Bill. Another point had been entirely left untouched, and it was that this year this great Estimate should not have been increased. It had, however, been increased by £161,000, and the House would have to take steps to stop this extraordinary increase in the Army Estimates. Therefore he should ask the Committee to divide.
Question put.
The Committee divided—Ayes, 83; Noes, 236. (Division List, No. 40.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Cameron, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Edwards, Frank

Bell, Richard

Causton, Richard Knight

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Black, Alexander William

Cawley, Frederick

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Charming, Francis Allston

Fenwick, Charles

Brigg, John

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Crombie, John William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crooks, William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Burns, John

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

Burt, Thomas

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Harwood, George

Caldwell, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Helme, Norval Watson

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Soares, Ernest J.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Joicey, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

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

Jones, David B. (Swansea).

O'Shee, James John

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Tomkinson, James

Kitson, Sir James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wallace, Robert

Labouchere, Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lambert, George

Rea, Russell

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Leng, Sir John

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

Levy, Maurice

Runciman, Walter

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, Herbt, L. (Cleveland)

M'Crae, George

Schwann, Charles E.

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

M'Govern, T.

Shackleton, David James

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faver'hm

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Disraeli, Goningsby Ralph

Jebb, Sir Richard Claver-house

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Doughty, George

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Kemp, Lieu.-Colonel George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Kennedy, Patrick James

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Duke, Henry Edward

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbiqh

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Baird, John George Alexander

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Kimber, Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

Lawson, John Grant

Bignold, Arthur

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bond, Edward

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Boulnois, Edmund

Fisher, William Hayes

Lockie, John

Bousfield, William Robert

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

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

Brassey, Albert

Flower, Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Eorster, Henry William

Lowe, Francis William

Bull, William James

Foster, P. S. (Warwich. S. W.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoff

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

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

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond

Macdona, John Cumming

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

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

Malcolm, Ian

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

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Maxwell, W. J. W. (Dumfriesshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Graham, Henry Robert.

Milvain, Thomas

Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

Mitchell, Edw, (Fermanagh, N.)

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

Groves, James Grimble

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Chapman, Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Hamilton, Marg, of (Londondy

Morrell, George Herbert

Colston, Chas, Edw H. Athole

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Morrison, James Archibald

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mount, William Arthur

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Health, James (Stafford. N. W.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert, F.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Nicholson, William Graham

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hogg, Lindsay

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Davies, M. Vaughan, (Cardig'n

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Denny, Colonel

Hoult, Joseph

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

348

349

Palmer, Walter (Salinbury)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Valentia, Viscount

Percy, Earl

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Seely, Chas Hilton (Lincoln)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Purvis, Robert

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

Pym, C. Guy

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Randles, John S.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Rankin, Sir James

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Reid, James (Greenock)

Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

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

Renwick, George

Spear, John Ward

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

Richards, Henry Charles

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wood, James

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Younger, William

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Thomson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n, N

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Thornton, Percy M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Tollemache, Henry James

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

Russell, T. W.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
SIR A. HAYTERcalled attention to the increase on the Estimates consequent on the addition of forty-three to the "staff for engineer services," and asked the Secretary of State for War to state the reason for the increase. He would be very much obliged also if the right hon. Gentleman would give some information in regard to an item of £36,800 for the conversion of North George Magazine at Gibraltar into a frozen meat store. In all £47,000 was to be spent on the conversion of this store. He did not understand how the work already built for £42,000 should involve so large an expenditure.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was over sanguine about the conversion of an ammunition magazine into a frozen meat store being in any way a cheap matter. In such a case they were only able to use the outer walls, and beyond that almost everything had to be rebuilt. He had personally investigated a large frozen meat store the other day and was surprised at the amount of work that had to be done. He had not seen the exact items; but he was afraid the amount very much surprised him.
SIR A. HAYTER: It is larger than the original cost.
MR. BRODRICKagreed, the original cost being £42,000 and that of the conversion, £46,000 or £47,000. With regard to the increase in the staff in the Surveyors Department, that was due to the amount of repairs and work that had to be done. There had been, however, a decrease of special salaries of over £3,000. There was no doubt that a large amount of work had to be done and supervised in that Department.
MR. WHITLEYsaid there was an item of £9,700, which was described as required for additional staff and new stations in South Africa. In another part of the Estimates there was an item of £50,000 for temporary accommodation in South Africa for the increased force there. He noticed there were other items in the Votes in connection with the maintenance of a force in South Africa. As far as he was aware the Committee had never had from the Secretary of State for War a statement, firstly, of the number of troops to be kept in South Africa during the next twelve months; secondly, of the nature of the provision which was to be made for the cost of such things as barracks or temporary accommodation; and, thirdly, the division, if any, of those charges between the Imperial and the loca exchequers. He thought it was very desirable that, instead of going over the ground as each item arose, the Committee

351
should have a clear and comprehensive statement from the War Office of what would be the estimated expenditure for the next twelve months on the force kept in South Africa. It would naturally be divided into normal expenditure—that was, the expenditure which would be incurred if the soldiers were at home instead of in South Africa—and the increased charge due to more or less permanent works such as barracks.
MR. BRODRICK: That is shown on page 6 of the Estimates.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was not aware that there was a complete statement of that kind. Did it include the items of £50,000 and £9,700 to which he had referred?
LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir.
MR. WHITLEYasked whether the whole cost of the troops to be maintained in South Africa for the next twelve months would fall upon Imperial funds, or whether there was to be a contribution by the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, or by the self-governing colonies of Natal and Cape Colony.
MR. BRODRICKsaid the excess of expenditure—the extra expenditure for temporary purposes—on these Estimates with respect to South Africa amounted to £2,000,000. With regard to the possibility of a contribution—and that possibility had not been lost sight of—no actual arrangement had been arrived at. He was certain that one colony, at any rate, would be willing to contribute.
MR. WHITLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state the nature of the barracks to be provided under the Vote for £50,000. Was it for permanent buildings?
LORD STANLEYsaid there were a certain number of troops to be kept there for a time, over and above what would afterwards be required. They could not be kept any longer in camps, and therefore the Government were providing as cheaply as they possibly could coverings for their heads. These were temporary huts, without any of the ordinary accessories of barracks. They were to
352
be put up just to accommodate the men until the accommodation was no longer required.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,820,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the supply and repair of warlike and other stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question or two about the new rifle for the troops. He had seen one in the Tea Room and thought of bringing it into the House, but was afraid that hon. Members would take some objection to that course. He personally did not understand rifles, but he was informed by those who did, that this one had some very serious defects, the principal one being a very considerable increase in the recoil over that of the last type. Every one who used a rifle knew that when they began to teach recruits to shoot the recoil was a very serious consideration. He was further told that the new rifle being covered with wood except at the slot for the back sight, the hot air came out through the slot and obscured the sight. Then, again, was there any advantage in the shortening of the rifle, and was there any alteration in the twist of the rifling, or was it the same rifling as in the former weapon.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked, with reference to the new rifle, whether it was the case that the muzzle velocity was less than in the previous rifle, and was the trajectory higher. Of course an immense advantage claimed for the late rifle was the flatness of the trajectory. That was a very serious change indeed if it had been made.
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSasked through what course of experiment the new rifle had been put. Everybody knew it was not only an extremely expensive, but a most important matter, to make any change in a service rifle. Before the last rifle was accepted for Army service, it was put

353
through experiments under all conditions, in dry and wet climates, to see whether it was a really serviceable weapon. It was what he thought was known as a Committee rifle; it was the result of a conference. He should like to know whether this rifle had come from a similar source. There were defects in the old rifle that was now to be superseded, which experts in guns deliberately attributed to the fact that it was not a rifle designed throughout by one individual. After experiments it was found that the shooting of that rifle was not satisfactory, that its weakness was due to the fact that the bolt which took the recoil after the explosion was too long, and not firm in its bed. He had examined the new rifle and found the bolt was longer than in the old one, and thus the question arose whether this defect, which was proved to have existed in the old rifle, was repeated in the new one. At any rate he considered that before the new rifle was placed in the hands of the troops there should be exhaustive experiments, and he should be glad if the Financial Secretary could assure the Committee that that had been done.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked the Secretary for War to give some explanation as to an item under I "Engineers Stores, £40,000." So far as he understood, that item appeared in the Estimates for the first time, and as it was nearly a fourth of the total of this particular Vote some explanation of it ought to be given.
SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid he had examined very carefully the new rifle lying for the past few days in the Tea Room, and he could tell the Secretary of State for War that the bolt was not a fit at all. It was too slack. Then the lift of the magazine was not uniform, and consequently the cartridge got jammed. It did not lift square, and the magazine did not work fairly. The sight was far too tender, and there ought to be some protection for it. It was of a very slim construction, though clever enough for shifting the gradations, but it was too slight for hard work. The rifle was also far too heavy and of faulty mechanism. No soldier could use it for active work in the field without coming to grief.
LORD STANLEYsaid he did not pretend in any way to be an expert in rifles, and he could only say that this new rifle had been tested in every possible way. His right hon. friend had condemned it as a "Committee rifle," and would have wished that it had been the production of a single individual. He did not agree with his right hon. friend. He thought a Committee did the work better than by leaving it to a single man. They issued a thousand of these rifles last June, and these had been tried in every possible way, and all of them had been uniformly well reported on. His hon. friend behind him said that there was a certain amount more "kick." That was true, but the increase in the recoil was very slight, and that disadvantage was more than counterbalanced by its numerous advantages. It was a pound lighter and five inches shorter than the old rifle. His right hon. friend opposite had asked whether the result of that was not a decrease in the muzzle velocity. He was afraid he could not answer exactly that technical point, but he understood that the new rifle had a muzzle velocity of thirty feet more than the old rifle. He was under the impression that the magazine was exactly the same as the old one, which had answered admirably in South Africa. The rifle had been examined most carefully, and tried in every possible way, and it had been reported upon by every expert in rifle shooting in the Army. He hoped the Committee would admit that the War Office had done all that was possible to put a good weapon into the hands of the troops.
GENERAL LAURIEasked whether the trajectory of the new rifle was higher or lower than that of the old rifle. That was most important.
LORD STANLEYsaid he did not know exactly, but he thought they might take it that as the muzzle velocity was increased there would be an almost imperceptible difference in the trajectory.
COLONEL LUCASasked whether the rifle would not be issued in three sizes of stock.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he did not think that shooting experts were good judges of recoil, for they held their rifles so tight to the shoulder that they were not affected by the recoil. The ordinary soldier, who held his rifle loosely to the shoulder, would feel the recoil more.
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSasked at what rate it was proposed to put the new rifle in the hands of the troops.
LORD STANLEYsaid he could not answer that question. They were getting stocks of different sizes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the noble Lord had forgotten to answer the rather serious point he had raised. He referred to the question of the backsight, and the exudation of foul air when the rifle was fired, which obscured the sight.
LORD STANLEYsaid that the whole of these points had been tested by people who, with all respect, knew more about a rifle than hon. Members. The War Office were informed that they had got a great improvement on the old rifle and they would now be able to arm both cavalry and infantry with a uniform rifle; and there would consequently not be the former great difference between the cavalry carbine and the infantry rifle as was the case in the last war. His hon. friend opposite had asked a question about Engineers' Stores. It was simply a transfer of special submarine stores from one Department to another. Formerly these were under the Inspector-General of Ordnance; now they were transferred to the man really responsible for them—the Inspector-General of Fortifications.
MR. CROOKSsaid he apologised to the Committee for intruding upon it so soon after his return to Parliament, but he feared that if he lost this opportunity he would be shut out for another year; and if he transgressed some of the Rules of the House he hoped he would be forgiven. He wanted to ask the Secretary for War one or two questions. There appeared in The Times on 7th March a letter alleged to have
356
come from the War Office promising the contractors a fair share, or as it seemed to him, very much more than a fair share of Government work. He had been told privately that there existed an understanding in the House, that when work was to be given out, that work was to be allocated two-thirds to the contractors, and one-third to His Majesty's Departments. He did not know how it appeared to other hon. Members, but it seemed to him that any Department of a Government, which claimed to be a business Government, should have an undoubted right to first make use of all the resources which the Nation had placed at its disposal before considering any other persons whatever. Of course he had been told that the contractors came to the service of the Government in their hour of need, and therefore they had a right to be remembered when there was no great pressure. That was to say that these contractors had laid down plant and other things and that the Government were bound to keep them going. But he had yet to learn that any particular advantages, financial or otherwise, had accrued to the country. If the contractors had served the Government well, they had been exceedingly well paid for the work they did. They charged exceedingly high war prices for the materials they supplied. He was entitled to say to the Committee that he did not agree with the kind of patriotism which was measured up at so much per cent. that a man would be patriotic or not according to the amount of dividends he paid to his shareholders. The nation was not entitled to consider these people except on strict business lines. They should receive no advantage or privilege beyond what they were entitled to. Of course he knew that they took orders for three years and that those three years had expired. His position was this: that this letter emanating from the War Office ought first to have taken into consideration the number of men and the class of men which the Government had at their disposal to produce the articles they wanted.
One hundred and fifty years ago the Government had established arsenals and manufactories where warlike material could be turned out; and for the last ten or twenty years much money had been spent by the nation in putting down plant for the use of the nation.

357
How could the Secretary of State for War square his notions of strict business principles with his practice, when he threw out of work a number of machines—not to speak of the number of men thrown out—with the view of finding employment for the machines and men of the contractors? If they wanted to get profit out of machinery it should be kept running. Idle machines depreciated sooner than working machines; and, therefore, he was entitled to ask why Government machines were kept idle. Was it of any particular value to the nation? He thought not, because, instead of getting goods cheaper, they were paying high prices for them while their own machines were standing idle. He had always heard that the Government were exceedingly anxious that their men should have regular employment; but when men were attracted to the service of the Government by the prospect of fairly regular employment, the conditions of regular employment were immediately thrown over in the interests of contractors. Why should the contractors be considered in times like these? In answer to a question he put to the right hon. Gentleman that afternoon, he was informed that there had been a general shrinkage. In the shell foundry 600 men were employed before the war, whereas now there were only 200 men in that department. Surely it ought to be put on the same footing as before the war. There was nothing unreasonable in that. In another department which was not up to its full strength, men had been working regularly for five years, but now it was to be reduced to a point lower than it ever had been during that period.
It might be said that contractors supplied material much cheaper than it could be made in the Government factories. If that were the contention, he would put a plain question to the right hon. Gentleman. Whose fault was it? Was it because of the extra supervision which was exercised in Government factories? He wished to know if the same conditions applied to workmen working for contractors and workmen in Government factories; and whether the supervision was the same in both cases. The men in the Government factories had to get up to a very high standard of work, otherwise they had to alter mistakes at their own expense. He wished to know whether the supervision was as strict in the case
358
of workmen employed by contractors as in the case of workmen employed by the Government; and also whether the cost of supervision was charged to each department instead of being charged as a separate item. Surely the cost of supervision ought to be a separate charge. When it was charged to the Arsenal it placed the men in a false position, and made the work appear to be three times more expensive than similar work carried out by a contractor. The contractors had fairly good representation in this House, and many things were to be said in their favour, but he took the line that if there was a national workshop it was the duty of the Government to keep it employed before considering any outsiders. The question of emergency did not arise. Was it not true that Kynochs were making cases for 4·7 shells which were refused by the naval authorities, whereas the shells made in the Arsenal were always accepted. There could not be any excuse for discharging the men; and if the House were composed of business men they should approach this question in a businesslike way. The Government had no earthly right to be using the money of the nation in building machinery and then allowing it to stand idle in the interests of any private firm, no matter who they were, or what influence they might have. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Crooks.)
MR. BRODRICKsaid he was sure that whatever their opinion might be as to the views of the hon. Member, all sections of the House would welcome his appearance in debate on a subject on which he was so fully informed. The question raised by the hon. Member was, however, by no means novel. It was one with which the House was exceed ingly familiar. There was hardly a subject on which such a great change in the opinion of the House had taken place as that of the division of Government work between the ordnance factories and the private contractors. When he first represented the War Office in 1886, nothing evoked louder cheers in the House than to say that work had been diminished in the Government factories in order to give it to the private con-

359
tractors. The hon. Gentleman now contended that the factories should be employed to their full time and capacity, and only the surplusage given to the contractors. The hon. Member appealed to the Committee as business men; and perhaps on this subject he might be permitted to quote the opinion of one of the shrewdest business men who had ever been at the head of the War Office. The late Mr. W. H. Smith laid it down that it was the business of the Government to keep private trade alive in time of peace, in order that it might be capable of expansion in the emergency of war; and that to secure that object they could afford to keep a certain amount of plant idle, knowing that they would have to depend on rapid power of expansion in time of war. He had always acted on that doctrine, and it appeared to him beyond question that they should reduce work at Woolwich to such a point as would enable them to secure a rapid increase in supply at the outbreak of war. What were the figures with regard to Woolwich? The present Government had by no means starved Woolwich. In 1895, when the present Government had come into office, 15,580 men were employed in the Woolwich I workshops. The number had been increased in 1898 to 18,800, and during the war it had risen to 23,300. Surely it would be false economy to continue to keep the Woolwich factory up to the war level of employment when a large output was no longer needed. There had been a general restriction of output. Private traders were also complaining that the orders given them for next year were not so large as those of last year. The hon. Gentleman should forgive him for saying that the course taken by the Government with respect to their factories was not in the interest of any private firms. It was taken solely in the national interest. It was taken as a necessary concomitant of any sound policy for the provisions of supplies; and, while he desired to keep Woolwich as fully employed as possible, he maintained that there ought to be some machines idle in time of peace in order to have a proper expansion in time of war. He thought the Committee would agree that the hon. Member, after his recent experience, was justified in bringing the case of the men he represented before the Committee;
360
but he was quite certain that the Committee would support the Government in the action they had taken.
COLONEL BOWLESsaid he wished to direct attention to the necessity of keeping a machine-gun department at Enfield. As the Secretary of State for War had just said, if they were to have rapid power of expansion in time of war, it was necessary that they should be able to manufacture in their own arsenals, as well as obtain supplies from private firms, as private firms could not afford to keep machinery lying idle. The old Maxim-Nordenfelt was now obsolete; and the newer gun, known as the pom-pom, was rapidly taking its place. He therefore hoped the Government would be able to see their way to instal machinery in the Enfield Factory for the manufacture of pom-poms.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked with regard to the items in reference to stores whether there had been a general revision of the stores since the war. The reason for this question was, that the Director-General of Stores had stated to the Committee of Public Accounts that such a revision would take place. Of course, the amount of stores must obviously depend on what the War Office and Committee of Defence decided the strength of the Army was to be, but as he understood, there would be a general revision of all stocks, and he desired to know whether that revision had taken place.
LORD STANLEYsaid the revision was now taking place. Of course, so long as the war was going on articles were being manufactured as quickly as possible on the assumption that it might continue, and when the war suddenly came to an end the authorities were left with a large surplus. But in answer to the hon. Member he could say the whole matter was now being considered.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEcalled attention to Vote E, which contained an increased amount for new construction of £4,000 for ships. He would

361
like to know what new vessels that was for, and for what reason the War Office embarked on a matter which would appear to belong more properly to the Admiralty. It might be better and cheaper to hire these vessels from the Admiralty and so relieve the War Office from the need of constructing vessels at all.
LORD STANLEYsaid this expenditure was for a special type of boat used generally for transport between various stations, but used especially for target towing. In the old days a type of boats was used which towed at a low rate of speed; under modern conditions those boats were of no use, and the War Office were now getting boats, which they could not possibly hire, of a higher steaming capacity. These boats were also being fitted in some cases with appliances so that the target could be wound up while being towed so that its speed might be accelerated. This was one of the expenses incurred in order to make more realistic the practice for the work those guns might have to do in time of war.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he wanted to know something about Vote K. He wanted to know why we were at war in Somaliland and why we had gone to war, and also whether the censorship with regard to matters in Somaliland—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the Somaliland expedition, as this Vote had to deal with stores and supplies only.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid in that case, as his conscience would not allow him to agree to this Vote until he had heard something more—we had just lost 1,000 camels he noticed, and he supposed these stores included camels, so that we should soon be asking for more—he moved the reduction of the vote to £20,000.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,800,000, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 259. (Division List No. 41.)

AYES

Bell, Richard

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann, Charles E.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Leng, Sir John

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Brigg, John

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

M'Crae, George

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Burt, Thomas

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomkinson, James

Channing, Francis Allston

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wallace, Robert

Crombie, John William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dunn, Sir William

Partington, Oswald

Yoxall, James Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Mr. Labouchere and Mr. John Burns.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Brassey, Albert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Beckett, Ernest William

Butcher, John George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Bignold, Arthur

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. H. Sir H.

Bigwood, James

Carew, James Laurence

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Black, Alexander William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bond, Edward

Cautley, Henry Strother

Baird, John George Alexander

Boulnois, Edmund

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

Baldwin, Alfred

Bousfield, William Robert

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

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

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hogg, Lindsay

Randles, John S.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

Rankin, Sir James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Hoult, Joseph

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Chamberlayne, T. (South'mpt'n

Howard, Jn. (Kent Faver'h'm

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Chapman, Edward

Howard, J. (Midd, Tott'ham

Renwick, George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Richards, Henry Charles

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Joicey, Sir James

Rigg, Richard

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Kennedy, Patrick James

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Keswick, William

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rose, Charles Day

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Russell, T. W.

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lawson, John Grant

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lockie, John

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Seely, Maj-J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Lowe, Francis William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Doughty, George

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Macdona, John Cumming

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Soares, Ernest J.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Malcolm, Ian

Spear, John Ward

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Edwards, Frank

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

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Strachey, Sir Edward

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Milvain, Thomas

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Tennant, Harold John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n V

Fisher, William Hayes

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Thornton, Percy M.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Flower, Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Forster, Henry William

Morrison, James Archibald

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

Mount, William Arthur

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Gardner, Ernest

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Valentia, Viscount

Garfit, William

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Myers, William Henry

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Webb, Col. William George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

Graham, Henry Robert

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Groves, James Grimble

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hall, Edward Marshall

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

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

Paulton, James Mellor

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Percy, Earl

Wolff, Gustav Wilheim

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Wood, James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Healy, Timothy Michael

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Heath, James (Staffords N. W.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Younger, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Purvis, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pym, C. Guy

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Original Question again proposed.
SIR CHARLES DILKEdrew attention to the minimum wage paid to persons employed in several departments under this Vote, particularly in the gun carriage department at Woolwich, and in the ammunition stores at Devonport. A large number of men were called labourers, and paid as such, who really discharged duties of quite a different description. It was unnecessary to go into the matter in detail, as the question had been discussed on previous occasions, and the Committee were doubtless familiar with the facts. These men, who in London were paid a minimum wage of 21s., and in Devonport, where house rent was also high. 19s., were really employed on most responsible duties, and, as representing an ordinary constituency as distinguished from a dockyard or similar constituency, he thought it was discreditable to the country that so low a wage should be paid to persons discharging such duties.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that the men to whom the right hon. Baronet referred, and who in Devonport received the monstrously inadequate wage of 19s. a week, were employed in work which, if done for outside contractors, would be classified as skilled labour. Some years ago Mr. Goschen, as First Lord of the Admiralty, promised that a thorough enquiry should be made into the rates of pay prevailing in the various localities, but that promise, as far as he knew, had not been redeemed. He hoped the Secretary of State, who was responsible at all events for the men employed under the War Office, would make a statement as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the matter.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that in Committee of Supply and in the House, he had repeatedly protested against the practice of paying a man as one kind of workman when he was really doing the work of another workman. Since the year 1892, a Resolution had been passed to the effect that it was the duty of the Government to treat these men the same as ordinary employers would, and give them wages according to the service they performed. He was under
366
the impression that that Resolution had been observed, and that the grievance complained of so many years ago had been remedied. He was very sorry to hear from the speeches he had just heard that he was labouring under a delusion; and it showed how extremely difficult it was to get the Department to depart from any evil when it was once established.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that as he had dealt with this question on former occasions, he would be very brief. There were a considerable number of men working for the Government at the wage of 21s., and a limited number were receiving only 19s. per week. Although these men received only 19s. per week, he was told that their real wages were more, because they could earn certain sums of money by being placed on piece-work. If there was one thing these men objected to, it was being given a low living wage, and then having to work at high pressure in order to bring that wage up to the normal wage for unskilled labour throughout the area of London.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this Vote is not for unskilled labour.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was under the impression that previous speakers were permitted to deal with this question, and amongst the men at Woolwich there were men who were not skilled labourers, but who were utilised for shifting stores from place to place. There were a number of engineers' labourers, and they had to do stevedore and other work. His contention was that no man employed by Government should be employed at a lower rate of wages than the men employed by the municipalities throughout the area of the County of London This was a matter of grave injustice, and the men looked upon it as such. This was one of the things—which he knew from experience—that those who worked under the War Office at Woolwich felt very keenly, and he begged to move a reduction of the entire Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,819,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
MR. DUKEasked the Committee to consider what the risks were which men incurred when employed from day to day in a Government factory where explosives were manufactured, and where shells were charged. He thought a man who was exposed to these risks ought not to be paid a wage of 19s. per week. That was one of the rates of wages at Bull Point. A considerable number of men were employed at this wage, and they felt it was something in the nature of a scandal to the public service that work of that kind should be remunerated in such a way. He was aware that they could always set men to do this work, but it had been decided before now in Parliament that the Government should not take advantage of the labour market in this way to force men to work under dangerous conditions at a wage which could not possibly be a living wage. Any one who knew the conditions of life in the Three Towns knew that 19s. a week was not a living wage. It was a very disagreeable thing for a Member representing a naval port or a dockyard town to be continually bringing these matters before the Committee; but if his right hon. friend would look into the question, he would find that the state of things existing was a real reproach to the public service which should be removed.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he had not the advantage of representing a dockyard or an arsenal constituency, but he did take an interest in the wages of unskilled labourers generally in this big city; and he said frankly that t did seem ridiculous that the Government should insist upon contractors paying, in the carrying out of Government work, the current rate of wages for the district, while the Govern merit themselves did not comply with that condition. Under the custody and issue of stores there were dock labourers, engineers' labourers, and store-keepers assistants, who received wages as low as 21s. and 19s. per week. Whether it be
368
at Woolwich, Devonport, or Portsmouth, he considered 19s. per week was miserably inadequate for a married man with a wife and, perhaps, two children. Without any electoral pressure he put it to the Secretary of State for War whether the time had not arrived when the Government should put its house in order, and pay the same rate of wages which they insisted upon contractors paying to their men. Take, for example, the store labourers at Woolwich. They handled stores of a heavy character, which were sometimes dangerous in manipulating; and when a man with a wife and two or three children was receiving only 21s., it must be admitted that it was below what private employers paid for similar work almost in the same district. The scavengers of the London Borough Councils received from 26s. to 30s. per week, with sick pay and a week's holiday every year. In his Majesty's Arsenal at Woolwich the men were paid only 21s. per week. He wished to remind the Committee how a man receiving 21s. per week had to live. He got 21s. for forty-eight hours work, and out of that total one-third would have to be paid for rent. If he was a father and a good husband, he could not get two or three rooms for less than 7s. a week. The result was that his children would have to live mainly on tea, and bread and butter, the wife would go without substantial food, and the husband would not be able to develop sufficient energy to give the Government value even for the low rate of pay he received. He appealed to the War Office to raise the wages from 21s. to 24s., which was below the average, and he did so not only in the interests of the lowly paid men, but in order to enable the Government to get out of the men a reasonable minimum of work, which he did not believe they could get out of the low wages paid at Woolwich. He believed that the dearest labour was cheap labour, and it was due to the fact that the American labourer was paid much higher wages that he gave a greater reproductive return in proportion. They could not expect men to maintain their physique and give a good return upon such low wages. He believed that where they had low wages they had always redundant labour. If they were paying 900 labourers 21s.

369
per week, it would be much better to pay 800 24s. per week and allow the other 100 to find employment elsewhere. With cheap labour they did not get the same output as they would get if they gave the men from 24s. to 30s. a week. He appealed to the Government to raise the minimum to 24s. a week. He had himself always believed that the dearest labour was cheap labour.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that what was now asked for the dockyard men was already recognised by the War Office with respect to the policemen who were on duty in the vicinity of those buildings where specially dangerous work was carried on. The policemen received 1s. extra wages when on this duty, although the men who were actually doing the work received nothing extra.
MR. BRODRICKsaid everybody knew that usually the dockyards went against the Government of the day. There were some reasons why they should do so. A notable one was what was going on at Woolwich. It was absolutely necessary to reduce the output at the close of the war. The question of wages was looked upon in the House up to recent times as a matter of supply and demand. That attitude had been abandoned in favour of paying the local rate; and it had been found that men preferred a lower rate of wages with constant employment under the Government than a higher rate under an employer whose supply of work was inconstant. Some time ago he had held an inquiry at Woolwich as to this subject, and he found that rent unfortunately went hand in hand with a rise of wages. He had taken special care to inquire among the men as to what they were paying in rent; and several workmen assured him that on the last occasion on which there had been a rise of wages it was promptly swallowed up, because the owners of the houses in the district immediately raised the rent to the same extent. He believed, therefore, that if the Government were to give a rise of wages all round at Woolwich it would have a general effect on rent. Neither was it fair that the Government should be guided by the wages paid by the trade contractors to labourers with whom those in the
370
Government service might be compared. The general scale of wages for labourers was formerly 17s. a week, now it was 21s., with allowances to be added for sick pay, medical attendance, and the general advantages of Government employment. These might be estimated as being equivalent to another shilling a week. He would undertake, however, in each case of the lowest wage to have the question looked into again in concert with the Admiralty, but he could not promise the hon. Member for Battersea that as a result wages would be raised from 21s. to 24s. while the Government were getting excellent labourers at 21s.
MR. CROOKSsaid the problem they had to face in regard to wages was a difficult one. He maintained that it was not cheap for the Government to pay men 21s. per week, although other employers might be able to get them for that amount. If the men had more money they would be able to get more and better house accommodation, and the ratepayers would be able to save a substantial sum which was now paid for medical orders. The President of the Local Government Board knew that in London, in consequence of overcrowding, these medical orders were issued to the people who were living under the conditions under which people must live who were only earning 21s. per week. That was not sufficient to find food, let alone shelter. An order had been issued by the Local Government Board instructing Boards of Guardians to feed the inmates of workhouses properly. The minimum scale laid down for persons in workhouses was of such a character that no man with a family could approach if he was only earning 21s. per week. He urged that the men in the employment of the Government should at least have a Local Government Board existence, if nothing more. If the nation was saving in employing men at 21s. per week, there might be something to be said for it, but they positively lost by it. There had been discussions as to the physique of the men in the Army and the Navy, but if a man brought up a family on wages of 21s. a week, they need not expect that his sons would have a chest measurement like he had. They had been told that there

371
were no miserable people under the British flag, but those who said that would find plenty of miserable people if only they looked downward instead of upward. The best service could not be got out of an ill-paid man. A master might say to his ill-paid workman: "You are not giving value for the money," but that workman might well reply, "I give value for all the money get." If they wanted a man to serve them well they must feed him well, and that could not be expected to be done on 21s. a week. The argument used about rent would not hold water. Even in Woolwich a way would be found of getting round the housing problem, if it did interfere with private enterprise. At present workmen had to live in slums for which they were charged the rent of first-class houses. If the Government did not interfere in this question of housing, an organisation would be got up to compel the erection of houses which could be let at such rates as a workman could afford to pay. Why should a workman have to pay as high as 50 to 75 per cent. of his wages for house room? If it were only known what struggles these poor people had to make for a bare existence there would not be so much talk about, this great nation and this Imperial race. The Government should set an example to other employers by paying the best rate of wages with the view of getting in return the best service.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that eleven years ago a Resolution was moved when the House was going into Committee of Supply, which was accepted by the Government of the day as a Resolution that was to apply to all Government establishments, and not to the naval establishments only. This Resolution was passed unanimously—
"That in the opinion of this House no person should in His Majesty's naval establishments be engaged at wages insufficient for proper maintenance and that the conditions of labour as regards house of work, wages, insurance against accident, provision for old age, etc., should be such as to afford an example to private employers."
That Resolution ought to have been acted upon by the naval and military authorities ever since.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that before the Committee went to a Vote it was only fair to the Secretary for War that they should recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had replied to the criticisms. The Secretary for War had promised that he would take an opportunity, in conjunction with the Admiralty, of considering the wages of the lowest paid employees engaged by both Departments. As far as that went it was satisfactory; but there should be something more than mere consideration. He believed that the introduction of the eight hours day in all the Government establishments had screwed up the intensity of the workmen at their work, had increased the quality, the value, and the quantity of the output in the shorter working day. He contended that what they asked for was not a bribe to the workmen, but in the interests of good physique, and a better output. They pleaded for fair play and equal rights for all white men, whether employed by contractors or by the State. There should be a determination to get rid of criticism both inside and outside the House on the wages question, by making the State "toe the line" with the best private employers, and instead of discussing whether their workmen should be paid 19s. or 20s. per week they would have time to discuss properly Imperial problems in the House of Commons. The London County Council, which employed 12,000 men, found no difficulty in dealing with the wages question. They paid the current rate of wages, and if a man did not do his work, out he went. Their rate of wages was 24s. a week.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that he had already promised to consider this question, but he reminded the Committee that during the discussion it had not been shown that the Government were paying less than the current rate of wages. One of the things which had been pressed most strongly on the Government was that they should not pay wages beyond the point which private employers could pay, and for which really good men could be obtained. He fully recognised that the spirit of the Resolution passed by the House of Commons should be

373
carried out, and he claimed that so far as his Department was concerned, they had acted in that spirit.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that he had proved to the Committee that at Siemen's works at Woolwich the men were paid 23s. a week.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid there was no want of sympathy for the condition of the labourers who had no bigger wage than 21s. a week. But this was not a matter that could, or ought—and he believed the workmen agreed in this—to be determined by considerations of charity. What the workmen desired was what they called fair wages, but what was a fair wage was rather a
difficult matter to determine. The governing consideration ought to be that Government employees should be paid at least as generously as other employees, and that when wages were rising, the Government should not lag behind, and when wages were falling they should not be the first to lower them. He felt he should be guilty of gross inconsistency if, after the recent debates advocating economy, he did not support the Government so long as they carried out the spirit of the Resolution and the principle of the model employer.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 196. (Division List No. 42

AYES

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Rose, Charles Day

Bell, Richard

Helme, Norval Watson

Russell, T. W.

Black, Alexander William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hope John Deans (Fife, West

Schwann, Charles E.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.)

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Labouchere, Henry

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

Burt, Thomas

Leng, Sir John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Channing, Francis Allston

Lough, Thomas

Soares, Ernest J.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., K.

Crooks, William

M'Govern, T.

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n N

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner Thos. Courtenay T.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Elibank, Master of

Partington, Oswald

Wood, James

Fenwick, Charles

Paulton, James Mellor

Younger, William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rea, Russell

Captain Norton and Mr. John Burns.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bigwood, James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bond, Edward

Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chapman, Edward

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Bousfield, William Robert

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Brassey, Albert

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

Austin, Sir John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Butcher, John George

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Baird, John George Alexander

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Baldwin, Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

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

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Cranborne, Viscount

Beckett, Ernest William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Bignold, Arthur

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Dickson, Charles Scott

Keswick, William

Rankin, Sir James

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos, C.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Renwick, George

Doughty, George

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lawson, John Grant

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Duraing-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lockie, John

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

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

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Francis William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macdona, John Cumming

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Artlrar, Charles (Liverpool)

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Malcolm, Ian

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Flower, Ernest

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

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Forster, Henry William

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Gardner, Ernest

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Groves, James Grimble

Morrell, George Herbert

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morrison, James Archibald

Valentia, Viscount

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt, Wm.

Mount, William Arthur

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Webb, Col. William George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Healy, Timothy Michael

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lync

Heath, James (Stafford, N. W

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Nicholson, William Graham

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hoare, Sir Samuel

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hogg, Lindsay

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

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

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hoult, Joseph

Parkes Ebenezer

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

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

Howard, Jno. (Kent Faver'h'm

Percy, Earl

Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Pretyman, Ernest George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Fellowes

Kennedy, Patrick James

Purvis, Robert

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Randles, John S.

Original Question again proposed.—
And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [4TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES 1903–4.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,186,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities,, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
MR. KEARLEYsaid that two years ago the Government, for the first time, had accepted the responsibility

377
and decided to give pensions to the widows of seamen and Marines who lost their lives in warlike operations, prior to which there was no liability; but the widows of men killed accidentally in the service received nothing from the State, whereas pensions were paid to the widows of naval and Marine officers who lost their lives in the service, whether in warlike operations or otherwise. The pensions paid to the widows of officers amounted this year to £134,500, and in addition there was a sum of £12,000 in compassionate allowances to their children. The pensions paid to the widows of sea men and Marines killed in warlike operations amounted to only £235. The widows of men killed otherwise than in warlike operations were relieved out of Greenwich Hospital Fund, which was not State money suplemented in the case of dramatic disasters, such as the loss of H.M.S.'Victoria'—by public benevolence. The allowance to widows paid out of the Greenwich funds was a paltry 3s. 6d. per week. He wished to know whether the State appraised a life forfeited in the service of the State during warlike operations at a higher value than the life, for instance, of a coast guard, who turned out, maybe, on a stormy winter's night to save life and lost his own in the endeavour. If that were so it was a most scandalous thing. He urged that the Admiralty should bring pressure to bear upon the Treasury to pay pensions to the widows of seamen and Marines, as well as to the widows of officers killed in the service of the State, whether in war or in peace. To support his contention he was fortified by the Resolution carried in this House in 1901, that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts should, with modification, be applied to this class of public servants. He was informed that the outside charge on the Greenwich Hospital Fund payable to widows as pensions was £5,500, and that an additional 40 per cent. would cover the cost of the extension of the pension to those he had referred to, so that for £7,000 a year the Government could meet the legitimate demand he made. The cause was a just and worthy one, and should be recognised by the Government. He begged to move the reduction of the Voe by £100.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,186,200, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Kearley.)
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid this part of the question was raised the other night, when he spoke at such length as he thought proper, and, therefore, it was unnecessary to again enter into the question deeply. It was, however, a matter in which he had been interested for some time, and about which he could not fail to feel strongly, representing as he did a naval district. Of all the questions which had been laid before him, and which made demands upon the Admiralty and Exchequer, there was none with which he had more sympathy and which, in his judgment, commended itself to the Committee more than this question of pensions. His hon. friend opposite had brought forward the question of the widows of seamen and Marines killed by accident or drowning, and had named various instances where life had been lost. He would like especially to allude to the case of the "Viper." The "Viper" was lost during the naval manœuvres. In the case of the naval manœuvres the ships, must necessarily undertake extreme liability, and even extra danger. There was no comparison between the Army and naval manœuvres. The hon. Member for Dumbarton had frequently conducted operations of troops in time of peace, and he would bear him out in saying that the troops might storm an impregnable position, make frontal attacks, and do anything they liked in time of peace without incurring any danger. But in naval operations the conditions were very different, for in naval operations they had to anticipate as far as possible all that would occur in time of war; they had to learn in time of peace what would happen in time of war; and to do that sailors and marines had to face perils which soldiers never had to undertake. In this case a ship was lost and men's lives were sacrificed, and the widows left a charge upon the country. But these widows were not charged upon the country at large, but upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund.
There was another instance. A few days ago a destroyer was going across the har-

379
bour at Portsmouth, and by ill-luck ran foul of a wire hawser, and two men were killed; and here again was an instance of want of efficiency. The report of the Court-martial which he had read brought to light the fact that the telephone frequently worked wrong on board this boat; and that the man in charge of the telephone at that particular moment was a man who did not know how to work it. But the point which arose out of it was this—one married man was killed and one unmarried man. The relatives of the unmarried man received a gratuity while the widow of the married man received a pension from Greenwich Hospital. These pensions ought not to be a charge on this Fund The Duke of Edinburgh's Committee in 1885 laid it down that the funds of Greenwich Hospital ought to be devoted to old seamen, and that was the purpose to which the Fund should be legitimately applied. Only half the Fund, however, was devoted to that purpose, and the rest went to charges which reduced the amount available for its legitimate purposes. This charge for the widows and orphans of seamen killed by accident or drowning ought to be removed from the Greenwich Hospital Fund, and ought to be made a public charge, because, without entering into the history of Greenwich Hospital, it was never intended that this charge should be made upon it. This was not a new point, for twice during the autumn session he inquired whether this charge might not be transferred from the Greenwich Fund, and on the 18th December last the First Lord of the Treasury informed him that no decision had been arrived at at present, but he held out hopes that at an early date he might give a favourable decision to the effect that this charge would be taken off the Greenwich Hospital Fund. They were still waiting at the end of March for that decision, and he would like to ask whether any information had come to the Admiralty to take the step foreshadowed by the Prime Minister. This was a simple matter, free from difficulties. The charge should be removed from this charitable fund, and as matters stood he must support the Motion.
MR. GODDARDsaid the discussion was largely due to the fact that there was a sense of unfairness in the way pensions were administered. There was a feeling that officers were treated very much better than the ordinary seamen. There was a case mentioned in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General which was a good illustration of what he meant. It was the case of a lieutenant of the Royal Marines who had retired on half-pay in March, 1869, after a service of four years and two months, in consequence of the report of his Colonel that he was extravagant, irregular, intemperate, and worthless as an officer. He died in April, 1901, and the Admiralty awarded a pension of £40 to his widow and a compassionate allowance of £10 per annum to his daughter. Article 2193 of the King's Regulations said that pensions should only be granted to the relatives of officers and men for good and faithful service rendered. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, in this particular case, invited an explanation from the Admiralty; and in reply was informed that the Lords of the Admiralty fully scrutinised the services of the officer and considered that he had rendered good and faithful service. He thought it would be clear to the Committee that if that were the principle on which pensions were given the complaints which were heard were justifiable. In other cases, where no complaint could be made against deceased seamen, the pensions awarded were small, paltry, and altogether inadequate.
SIR WILLIAMALLANsaid he was led to believe a few years ago that the Secretary to the Admiralty intended to take this matter up, but nothing had been done, and they were again brought face to face with what he called a gross injustice. Why should there be a distinction drawn between loss of life while on duty and loss of life in action? Where was the difference? He knew not. If a number of bluejackets on a gunboat which went down lost their lives, not in action, their widows would, forsooth, get a miserable pension from the Greenwich Fund of from 3s. 6d. to 5s., and for each child only 1s. 6d. The Greenwich Fund was not Government

381
money at all; it was the growth of years from the savings of the bluejackets themselves. But if bluejackets were killed in action their widows would receive from 5s. to 10s., and each child from 1s. 6d. to 2s. What was the difference between the two cases? He had looked at the Estimate, and, although he did not want to use strong language, it appeared to him to savour very much of favouritism. He found that the widows of fifteen captains got £2,415, whereas the widows of twenty-one seamen and Marines only got £235. The whole list was unworthy of the greatness and generosity of this nation. They grudge nothing for repairs; but when it came to providing for the widow and orphan of the man who lost his life in the service of the country, they only gave 3s. 6d. to the widow, and 1s. 6d. to each child.
When the "Cobra" went down a fund was raised in Newcastle for the widows and orphans of the men who were lost, and several thousands of pounds were collected. The widows only got 3s. 6d. per week from the State, though he knew what the widows of others got. He appealed to the heart of every Englishman and Scotchman, and would ask was such treatment right and just? It was not. He found that 760 children of deceased Naval and Marine officers got £10,250, or an average of £13 each as a compassionate allowance, but there was no compassionate allowance for the children of deceased bluejackets. That pained him very much. What he should like to see would be the unification of the Greenwich Fund and the Patriotic Fund, in order that there might be plenty of money to provide pensions on a uniform basis; or, better still, let them put the pensions on the Votes. His contention was, that if a man were killed in the execution of his duty he ought to be looked upon as having lost his life in the service of his country just as much as if he were killed in action. In the merchant service, if a seaman was struck by a falling block and killed, his widow would be paid at least three years' wages, but if that happened to a bluejacket his widow would have to go on the Greenwich Fund, whereas if he were shot in action she would get from 5s. to
382
10s. He appealed to the Secretary to the Admiralty, as one who knew the Navy, to say whether that was fair or just. Again he would repeat that his contention was that there should be no distinction drawn when a man was killed on duty. That was the crux of the whole situation; and if the hon. member went to a division, he would, for the first time, vote against the Government on Navy Estimates as a protest against what he regarded as a gross injustice.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had delivered a very excellent speech, which would appeal to them all. He thought, however, the hon. Gentleman was carried a little away by emotion, because he seemed to think that a sailor should run no risks in his profession. He was anxious to give everyone what they desired; but still the difficulty of raising money had to be taken into consideration; and when the Votes were increased they had hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House seized with a fit of economy. With reference to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich, he thought the hon. Gentleman should have stated that that case had not yet come before the Public Accounts Committee. It would be considered by the Public Accounts Committee to-morrow; and he hoped that some answer would be forthcoming from the representatives of the Admiralty. If not, he trusted that stops would be taken to prevent what he might almost call a scandal. During the years on which he had been on the Public Accounts Committee a similar case had never come before him.
MR. GODDARDsaid he did not remember a similar case in connection with the Navy; but he did in connection with the Army. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the matter had not yet come before the Public Accounts Committee, he merely referred to the observations of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the case.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid it was a very serious case, and one which ought not to occur For his own part,

383
he hoped it would not occur again. Still, in this particular instance, he thought the Public Accounts Committee might be trusted to deal with the question.
MR. DUKEagreed with the appeal which was put forward from the other side that the wives and orphans of seamen who had lost their lives in the Service, when not engaged in warlike operations, should be treated in the same way as those who had lost their husbands and fathers in war. Steps might be taken to provide the necessary funds for the purpose without an irregular drafe upon the funds of Greenwich Hospital. Only last week a strong case was made out in the House for addition to the funds of Greenwich Hospital to meet the proper claims made upon it. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Gateshead, that if a man was killed on service some provision ought to be made for his wife and children. He believed the owners of merchant ships generally were, as a body, prepared to meet that requirement in the case of merchant seamen, by falling into line with other employers in the country in the matter of insurance. He could not see why the Government of this country, which, although it was alleged to be temporarily hard-up, was really a flourishing and solvent Government, should not see its way, by some system of insurance, or by some reasonable provision, to mitigate the position of widows of bluejackets killed in the Service. What did it matter to the widow whether her husband was shot dead in action or fell from the mast-head. If he fell from the mast-head she had not the sympathy she would have if he met his death in action. The position of the widow of a man killed in the Service by accident was worse than the position of a widow who had lost her husband in action, because she did not receive the same sympathy and help. In the case of a widow whose husband was killed in action there was even a possibility that the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund would find some means of doing something for her. In the case of a poor woman who found herself left destitute by her husband being killed by accident, there was no legal claim and not so much compassion He hoped the Government would see
384
that they ought in that respect to be model employers. We expected a great deal from seamen, and professed to depend a great deal on their devotion, but we did not give so many practical tokens of our devotion or affection for them; and for his part he would prefer that some steps should be taken, and that seamen in the service should not only feel they were generously treated, but that the wives should not feel that when the husbands had lost their lives, and they and their children had lost their maintenance by an accident in the public service, nothing was done for them as a matter of right. He hoped the Secretary for the Admiralty would hold out some hope that this position would be considered. Perhaps something could be done in the way of making the Patriotic Fund applicable, instead of keeping it locked up or treating it as a sort of ignis fatuus to be pursued by hon. Members whose constituents had claims upon it. If some proper provision could not be made out of the Patriotic Fund we ought to have the patriotism to make the provision out of public moneys as a matter of justice.
SIR J. LENGreferred to the loss of lives in the "Condor." That, he said, was a vessel which was known before she was sent to sea not to be of a seaworthy type. She was known to be exceedingly cranky, and it was understood that her commander had made representations on the subject. She was, however, sent to sea; and after leaving port was never more heard of. There was a case of a gallant captain; a man of high character in the Naval service, with officers under him who were also of good standing, and a good crew. That vessel went to the bottom of the sea, and he would like to know why the men on board her, and their widows and children, were not as fairly entitled to pensions as if that vessel had been sunk by a shot from a hostile fleet. There was also the case of those torpedo boats which buckled at sea, and in which lives were lost. And there was also the case of men killed by guns bursting during practice. Several lives had been lost in that way. What was the difference to the widows and

385
children whether the men lost their lives in that way or in a naval engagement? There was really no difference to the men's dependents and he thought they ought to be treated in precisely the same way. Though the mercantile Navy did not come within this Vote, he would like to make a suggestion which he tried to make some years ago. It would cost very little to shipowners if they insured the lives of their men who went to sea. At present the dependents of the men were entirely dependent on the generosity of the owners of the vessels. A very small sum was provided, in cases where there were total losses of vessels, for those who suffered by it. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would treat this matter from an equitable point of view, and let them know what was the distinction between lives being lost at sea from accident or from the foundering of vessels in the Fleet, and lives lost in action.
MR. LOCKIEasked the Government seriously to consider whether it was not right and just that the widows of men killed in the execution of their duty, whether in action or otherwise, should be treated in the most generous manner possible. With regard to the veterans he should like to say that it was a great pity that the Greenwich Fund, which did not fulfil the function originally intended on account of the drains made upon it, should have to meet the contributions for widows and orphans. A large number of men were entitled by their age to receive these Greenwich pensions, and did not because they were told that the amount at the disposal of the Commissioners was not adequate to the demand, but he did not think it was a question to be considered on that narrow basis. These men were induced to join the Service upon what they understood to be specific terms—that when they reached a certain age they would receive a certain pension. They were disappointed in this. He would therefore ask the Admiralty to seriously consider the question, not whether it was legal justice but whether it was not a national responsibility resting upon them.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said the question had been raised whether there should be a different value placed on lives lost in connection with the "Condor" and the "Cobra" and the lives lost in South Africa. He thought that question could hardly have been asked in any other way than pro forma, because he imagined that the hon. Member who asked it, like every one else, would give the Admiralty credit for having the same sympathy with the men who lost their lives in peace or in war. The position with regard to the pensions due to officers' widows was mainly a matter of previous arrangement between them and the State. The same rule applied to the men. He did not think the case had been put quite fairly by the hon. Member for Gateshead, whose eloquence had overpowered his reason. [Sir W. ALLAN: "Not a bit."] As to the difference between the risks of war and peace and the different treatment meted out to the widows, he would admit that he saw no difference; he quite admitted that. But it was in the question of distinction where the difficulty arose. It was said that this principle should apply equally to the Army and the Navy. Then why not the Post Office and the Police?
MR. KEARLEY: Civil servants get the advantages of the Employers' Liability Act.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that might be so, but that did not alter his case. This was not a question merely for the Admiralty. If it were only a question of £7,000 a year it would be a comparatively small matter; but it was very difficult to draw the line. As to the question of establishing a statutory pension, placed upon the State, he must point out that it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to draw the line between deaths which occurred through Service causes and deaths which did not. In the case, for instance, of a man who caught cold on a field day and died within two years the problem would be extremely difficult. He was not trying

387
to make out a case for denying relief, but he was trying to show that the question was a large one, which required a considerable amount of thought and attention. This was the cause of the delay which had occurred. He could not go behind the answer which had already been given when it was stated that the matter was receiving consideration. There was every sympathy for cases of hardship, but it had not yet been found possible to arrive at an absolute decision on the subject. With regard to the case referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich, he said he did not believe the officer in question was retired on the grounds mentioned, but on reduction of establishment. That made all the difference. In cases such as that of the "Condor," the "Cobra," or the explosion in the "Mars," the widow of a sailor who had lost his life only got 1s 6d. less than was granted in connection with operations in war. In reply to the contention that an irregular use was being made of the Greenwich Fund, he said that under the original provisions governing that Fund one of its first objects was to provide pensions for widows. At present only £5,500 out of £198,000 was devoted to that purpose, which he did not think was an excessive amount, in view of the original destination of the fund. He hoped the hon. Member would recognise that the Admiralty was not wanting in sympathy with the object which underlay his Motion, and he could only repeat that the matter was under consideration.
MR. FENWICKsaid this question had not been raised as a matter of charity. It had been brought forward on grounds of justice. He for one had never been able to see why the State should be put in a more favourable position than that in which it had itself put the private employer. It was a proper thing that employers of labour in mines, on railways, and in other hazardous occupations should have laid upon them the responsibility of providing compensation for accidents which occurred in the course of the employment. Two years ago the Government accepted a Resolution, moved by the hon. Member for North Monmouth, by which they under-
388
took the respons bility of providing for workmen in their employ advantages similar to those granted under the Workmen's Compensation Act to workmen in ordinary employ, but as yet no conclusion had been arrived at. It was now proposed to distinguish between persons killed during time of war and those killed in time of peace. So far as the position of the widow was concerned, the suffering, hardship, and privation were just as great at the one time as at the other, and the Government ought to discharge the obvious duty of providing for these widows, even if the accident happened in time of peace. It was not sufficient to say that the matter was under consideration; the time had come for definite action, and he, at any rate, could not rest satisfied while the matter remained in its present position.
MR. SEELYsaid that, according to his recollection, it was quite understood at the time the Compensation Bill was under consideration that the Government would see that persons in their employ were treated as well as persons in civil employment. The question now at issue was a very small one from the point of view of the public finances. The sufferings to widows and children were just as great during time of peace as during time of war, while the chances of assistance from public funds were very much less, so that if any distinction was to be made he should be inclined to make more liberal provision for the sufferers by accidents in time of peace. Sufficient time had elapsed since the loss of the "Cobra" and the "Condor" to come to some decision. No one would accuse him of anxiety to increase the burdens of the country, but he certainly thought this was one of the cases in which economy was a mistake. It might be true that the people had no legal claim, but he thought the Admiralty would be well advised to consider, not how they could avoid doing it, but how they could arrange to give the same allowance to widows who lost their husbands in time of peace as was given to those who were bereaved in time of war.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid the precise terms of the Resolution to which reference had been made were as follows:
"That there is urgent need to extend the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, with appropriate modifications, to the naval and military servants of the State who may be killed or injured in the course of their employment."
That Resolution was carried unanimously, and all expected to see it applied in a practical form to the most helpless classes of the community. It had boon said that these people had no real claim. At any rate, the passing of that Resolution gave them a Parliamentary claim, and the Government should be called upon to satisfy it. Common-sense and justice demanded that the men who entered the Navy, of which we were so proud, should be properly treated. There was no disposition on either side to reduce the Votes necessary to keep intact our first line of defence, but surely it was not a wise policy to refuse the application of the principle of compensation to the men who would have to defend our shores in time of trouble. The amount required would make no appreciable difference to the sum allotted to the Navy; therefore, as it was a question, not of sympathy, but of justice, he hoped the Government would give practical effect to the Resolution the terms of which he had read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,)said it must be clearly understood that the widows of men killed in time of peace did get allowances, but not on so large a scale as the widows of men killed in time of war. In his position he was naturally disinclined to add anything, however small, to the burdens already borne on the Estimates. He believed that the amount involved was considerably more than hon. Members seemed to imagine, because if the view now pressed were acceded to it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid extending the principle to other services. It went without saying that the case which had been presented excited the sympathy of every Member of that House, and all would agree that the object with which it had been brought forward was a very desirable one. He was bound, however, to protect the Exchequer as far as he could, but if hon. Members would accept his
390
assurance that he would go very carefully into the matter—which as yet he had not been able to do—with a view to seeing whether the natural feeling which actuated them could be met, he was prepared to give that assurance.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that while all would agree that the keeping down of the Estimates was a very laudable object, there were directions in which economy should not be attempted, and he was unable to see why a distinction should be drawn between those who lost their husbands in time of peace and those who were bereaved in time of war. The amount of money involved in giving the extra 1s. 6d. asked for would not be a very serious matter, because, according to the Estimate for 1903–4, the pensions were to be paid to the widows and children of only twenty-one seamen and marines. What was likely to be the effect of such a discussion as this on the manning of the Navy? Young men, if they saw that this distinction was to be made in regard to their wives and families, would naturally be somewhat diffident about entering the Service. "Service" extended from the time a man signed articles until he left the Navy; it mattered not whether it was in time of war or in time of peace. He hoped the consideration the right hon. Gentleman had promised to give to the matter would result in these poor widows getting at least 1s. 6d. per week more than they were now receiving.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYexpressed his surprise that the hon. Member for Lincoln should support this proposal. Whenever there was an opportunity of voting against any increase of the Estimates the hon. Member seized it; it therefore seemed hardly consistent that on this occasion he should urge the Government to spend more money. This question no doubt presented, primâ facie, a somewhat hard case, but if it was to be carried to its logical conclusion, the Employers' Liability Act would have to be extended to all Government employees. That might be a good or bad thing, but those responsible for the various services had to see how best they could get the men they required, and if

391
they found they could best get them by offering higher pay without pensions, or compensation for accidents, they were justified in so doing. It must be a question of arrangement or bargain, and at present the bargain was that the same amount of pension should not be given to the widows of men killed in time of peace as was given to the widows of men killed in time of war.
SIR CHARLES DILKE, said that in view of the Resolution unanimously adopted by the House two years ago, the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely to consider the matter was altogether inadequate. The House had unanimously decided that this principle should be applied, and now the noble Lord spoke as though this was something new to-night. If the statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been made when this matter was first raised in the House, he should have recommended his hon. friend to accept it. As a matter of fact, to-night they were getting something less than what was promised them two years ago, and the Government seemed to have entirely forgotten and ignored that Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of it as a new matter.
MR. RITCHIE: The Resolution is another question altogether, while this is a specific matter.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to remember the Resolution which declared that there was urgent need to extend the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, with proper modifications, to the Naval and Military servants of the State who might be killed or injured in the course of their employment.
MR. RITCHIE: But this is a specific point raised tonight. I mean the pensions of widows due upon the death of their husbands in time of peace. As I understand, hon. Members have been urging that the Exchequer should bear the cost of the 3s. 6d. which has hitherto been paid out of the Greenwich Fund.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that so far as he could understand the right
392
hon. Gentleman, his complaint seemed to be that the question had been argued as if it concerned one small portion of the general case embraced in the Resolution of the House of Commons. That Resolution more than covered this particular point. His point was, that this matter was settled two years ago, and the Resolution was unanimously carried by the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just shown by his speech that the Government completely ignored that Resolution. They had never thought of it from that time to this, and it seemed now quite fresh to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury Bench, with the result that the Resolution had been completely ignored.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I think there has been no lack of sympathy shown with the views of hon. Members opposite upon his question and I should like, before this debate comes to a close, to explain this matter for the information of hon. Members who have not been in the House the whole time. There has been, in the first place, a suggestion which I should not like to go forward as being an accurate representation of the facts. It has been suggested in the course of the debate that the difference made between the sums paid to widows of seamen dying in action and the widows of seamen dying in Service, but not in action, is not observed in the case of the widows of officers. This suggestion is made in error. The distinction is made in the case of officers and men alike. It is also not the case that there has been any forgetfulness of the Resolution passed by the House of Commons; on the contrary, the words in the Resolution suggesting a consideration of the relatives of those in Government service losing life at sea has been given effect to, and it is an entire misconception to believe that those relatives of men who lost their lives at sea in peace time are not in receipt of any compensation at all.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: We knew that at the time we debated the question.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Very well, then; clearly the issue is not whether we are going to apply the Workmen's Compensation Act to the sailors of the Royal Navy or not, but the question is whether the compensation now given is adequate or not. I appeal to hon. Members to pay some attention to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has said this matter is new to him, and that he desires to take into consideration the representations made to him this evening. As representing the Admiralty, I shall myself be ready to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are some risks incurred by sailors in time of peace which so closely correspond to those which they run in time if war that it is difficult to find any distinction between them. I hope that the Committee will agree to the Vote on my assurance that I will represent with absolute conviction that such cases merit the favourable attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he undertakes his consideration of this question. I believe that in this direction we shall find the solution which the hon. Member for Devonport desires. I do not think that the Committee will desire me to go further and to commit myself to any general rule that every loss of life, directly or indirectly connected with the service at sea, should be regarded as loss of life which occurred in active service or in warlike operations. If hon. Members will accept that assurance from me, I
shall be satisfied, and I hope the Committee will allow us to take this Vote upon that assurance.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that they were all in sympathy with the objects which hon. Members opposite had in view, but he should be sorry if the matter was pressed to a division, because he thought that after the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for the Admiralty it would be much better to accept those assurances and not have a division.
MR. SEELYsaid he desired to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Admiralty for the manner in which they had spoken upon this question, and no doubt they would give the matter their best consideration. He had no doubt whatever as to what would be the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving this matter his consideration, and the only thing he was anxious about was that those widows should have this money. He did not care whether the 3s. 6d. came out of one fund and 1s. 6d. out of another, for all he was anxious about was that the amount should be made up to 5s. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find no difficulty whatever in the matter, and by doing this he could not be accused of wild extravagance for providing this small extra sum.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 43.)

AYES.

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

Caldwell, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Causton, Richard Knight

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cawley, Frederick

Duke, Henry Edward

Bell, Richard

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Elibank, Master of

Black, Alexander William

Crean, Eugene

Fenwick, Charles

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dalziel, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Brigg, John

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Broadhurst, Henry

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Rea, Russell

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Helme, Norval Watson

Reckitt, Harold James

Soares, Ernest J.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rickett, T. Compton

Toulmin, George

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Rigg, Richard

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Lambert, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

White, George (Norfolk)

Leng, Sir John

Robson, William Snowdon

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Levy, Maurice

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Crae, George

Rose, Charles Day

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Runciman, Walter

Wood, James

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Russell, T. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Kearley and Mr. Reginald Lucas.

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

Schwann, Charles E.

Partington, Oswald

Shackleton, David James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawich, B.)

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Pretyman, Ernest George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

Purvis Robert

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Groves, James Grimble

Pym, C. Guy

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Randles, John S.

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Rankin, Sir James

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Reid, James (Greenock)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bignold, Arthur

Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Bigwood, James

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bond, Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bousfield, William Robert

Houston, Robert Paterson

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Brassey, Albert

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kennedy, Patrick James

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

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

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Chapman, Edward

Lawson, John Grant

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

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spear John Ward

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

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Lockie, John

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

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

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

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Cranborne, Lord

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Webb, Col. William George

Crossley, Sir Savile

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

Denny, Colonel

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Morrison, James Archibald

Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Mount, William Arthur

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

Doughty, George

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Younger, William

Fisher, William Hayes

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Flower, Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Forster, Henry William

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Welleslev

Sir Alexander Acland and Hood Mr. Fellowes.

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

Percy, Earl

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
MR. WHITLEYasked whether the pensions for good and meritorious services would be paid to the men when they retired, or whether they would receive them while on full pay. If given while the men were on full pay, would the pensions cease on retirement?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the pensions for good and meritorious services in the Navy were given under the King's regulations. He understood that they were not drawn while the men were on full pay.
MR. REGINALD LUCAScalled the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to what he believed was a discrepancy in the different rates of gratuity for long service and good conduct as between Marines and seamen.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not able to give the hon. Member that information at present, but he would inform himself on the subject.
MR. WHITLEYasked whether it was the case that the pensions ceased on retirement.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he desired to correct the answer he had just given to the hon. Member for Halifax. It was a fact that some of the officers who received pensions for good and meritorious services were on full pay.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked whether the Committee were to understand that the officers had no other sources of income except the amounts which were put down in the Estimates.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid these sums were additional. He was not familiar with the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, but he would look into the matter. Of course, whether the discrepancy which was stated to exist would be rectified would depend on the result of his examination.
2. £259,000, Medical Establishments and Services.
MR. KEARLEYsaid they had heard a great deal this year from the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to the training of the men of the Fleet. There was, he thought, one very important piece of training which had been altogether overlooked. He referred to the necessity of every man in the Navy being instructed in "first aid" to the wounded. He thought that if the Fleet came into action, in a very short time the decks of battleships and cruisers would be shambles, and he was perfectly certain that they would not have an adequate staff on board to deal with all the Cases which would require immediate attention. Judging from the practice in previous wars the doctors would be below carrying on, mainly, surgical work. It was most desirable in the interest of humanity that every man on board should be able to render first aid to the wounded. The very fact of how a man was handled after being wounded might make all the difference between his losing his life and being saved. There were doctors on board the Fleet and attached to the depôts and he did not think there would be the slightest difficulty in imparting to young sailors elementary instruction of the kind he
398
proposed. He also suggested that the Admiralty should have a reserve of doctors who could be called upon in the event of war breaking out.
SIR J. COLOMBsaid he believed the intention of the hon. Member for Devonport was good, and no doubt there were certain men to whom his suggestion regarding instruction in first aid might be made to apply. The instruction could be given without any expense by the doctors on board the ships and at the depôts. The instruction, he thought, should be confined to those holding positions on board ship who could best be spared in action. He disagreed with the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the ships in war would be shambles. Everything in modern experience showed that that was not so, the ships and crews would be destroyed together. In the old days in naval warfare great damage could be inflicted on the personnel of the ships and the ships survive, but that was not the case now. The statistics regarding the war in which the Japanese Fleet was engaged not long ago showed that at Yalu there was enormous loss in the medical branch but when the details were examined it was seen to be due to a great explosion caused in a part of one ship. The suggestion that there should be a reserve of doctors was really a very minor matter. A large reserve of doctors was necessary for a military force, because the losses on land were largely due to diseases arising from insanitary conditions. In the Navy, war did not change the sanitary conditions, and so the number of doctors required could be easily estimated.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that both matters had already engaged the attention of the Admiralty. The Admiralty were already arranging for a reserve of medical officers, and their efforts had met with a most gratifying response from the medical profession.
MR. GROVESsaid he wished to make a further suggestion with reference to the medical staff of the Navy. He believed that with regard to medical officers in the Navy, and especially those on foreign service, there was very great danger of their not being in that position of up-to-date knowledge

399
which was so necessary for those who might have surgical work to perform. His suggestion was that medical officers in the Navy should go through a hospital course from time to time to make themselves acquainted with the latest surgical and medical practice, in which science was constantly introducing developments and improvements.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Member's suggestion had been anticipated by the action of the Admiralty. The sanction of the Treasury had been already obtained to a scheme by which each year fifty medical officers would take a post-graduate course in the medical schools.
The Vote was agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £15,500 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of martial law, including the cost of Naval prisons at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
MR. KEARLEYsaid he had given notice of his intention to move a reduction of the Vote by £100. He had for some years taken action with the view of obtaining a remedy for the grievance felt by marine officers on account of their being prevented from sitting on courts-martial when afloat. This matter had been under discussion in the House for at least twelve years. The disability was very much resented by the marine officers. There was a considerable amount of jealousy and prejudice against the marines on the part of the naval officers. Everybody knew it. The naval officer wished to do the best he could for himself, but in doing that he was restricting all the privileges to his own rank and class. He thought this question was first raised in 1892 by Sir John Pope Hennessy, who pressed it on the attention of the Admiralty. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty said that he did not personally see why the change proposed should not be made, and he gave a distinct pledge that he would so amend the Naval Discipline Act as to remove the grievance.
400
The present Secretary to the Admiralty in 1893 addressed a question to the then Secretary of the Admiralty in which he asked what steps had been taken to carry out the promise of the First Lord of the Admiralty that a clause would be inserted in the Naval Discipline Act to allow members of the Royal Marines to sit on courts-martial afloat when members of that corps were being tried. And the reply of the First Lord was that this question could only be dealt with by legislation and that it would be considered when a Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act became necessary. The present Secretary to the Admiralty was committed very deeply on this question.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Kearley.)
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that any proposal of that kind mentioned by the hon. Member would involve new legislation.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member would be out of order in discussing upon the Estimates any proposal involving new legislation.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 was quite definite on this matter; Section 58 of that Act provided as follows:—
"No officer shall be qualified to sit as a member of any court-martial held in pursuance of this Act unless he be a flag officer, captain, commander, or lieutenant of H. M. Navy on full pay."
MR. KEARLEYsaid he could hardly understand that the Deputy Chairman ruled that any matter requiring legislation could not be raised on the Estimates.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid he was quite clear on the point that any proposal for new legislation had always been ruled out of order in discussing the Estimates.
MR. KEARLEYsubmitted that there was here no question of new legislation at all. The Admiralty, by a stroke of the pen, could issue an order to secure what he wanted.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the Secretary to the Admiralty had

401
clearly stated that new legislation was required, and therefore the hon. Member was out of order.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he hoped he would have another opportunity of raising this question.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that last year he had drawn attention to the salary of the chaplain at Lewes Naval Prison. That clergyman had only to look after the prisoners and the staff, and he was paid a salary of £402, allowance in lieu of house £50, and civil allowances £48—in all, £500. The governor of the prison was only paid £370, although under another Vote he received allowances which made up his total income to £700. The local medical practitioner, whose duties were not very small, received only £100 per annum, and the chief warder £106. The naval prison at Bodmin did without a chaplain at all, the chaplain of H.M.S. "Duke of Wellington" doing all that was necessary, and receiving £50. He asked how it was that this very remunerative post was maintained at Lewes, for the chaplain had only to minister to 124 prisoners and twenty-four of a staff, for which he received £500—a sum which, he ventured to say, would be regarded as particularly large in most parishes in England. He reminded the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty of a promise he had made last year to inquire into the position of the chaplains of naval prisons, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain why this comfortable billet at Lewes had been created and preserved for this particular clergyman.
MR. PRETYMANsaid the appointment of this clergyman, and the salary he received, were due to his seniority in the Navy. It was considered necessary that a long-service Chaplain should be appointed at Lewes. The prison at Bodmin was a mixed establishment, and the Chaplain was appointed by the Prison Commissioners, and the salary paid out of the Civil Service Vote.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he did not know how they could bring up this question of the position of Marine officers on courts-martial except by the very crude method of dividing against the Government. He differed from his hon.
402
friend the member for Devonport, who said that there was a jealousy between the two branches of the Service.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was out of order in again raising this question, because it had been ruled over and over again that proposed new legislation could not be discussed on the Estimates.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman as to the Chaplain at Lewes was the same as that given last year. Might he ask whether, in accordance with the promise given last year, an inquiry had been made into the question of the position of the Chaplains at naval prisons, and whether anything had been done?
MR. WHITLEYasked whether it was really necessary to have a Chaplain at a salary of £500 per annum to look after 124 men. There should be some statement from the Government whether they could not see their way to make an arrangement by which the services of this clergyman should be employed elsewhere, where greater opportunities would present themselves for the exercise of his talents.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that last year he did promise to make an inquiry into this matter, because he did not know the facts. Now he knew the facts, which were quite simple. The Chaplain at Lewes was entitled by reason of his long service and seniority as a naval chaplain to the pay mentioned and he was employed at Lewes because he was a most suitable officer for the post. The prison at Lewes ought, in the opinion of the Admiralty, to have the services of a clergyman of wide experience of life and of the naval service. This clergyman was receiving the same salary he would be entitled to in any other sphere to which he might be transferred, and therefore there was no extra expense involved in the arrangement. He thought the Admiralty were entitled, in their discretion, to decide after consultation with the Chaplain of the Fleet, what Chaplain could be employed at this place with the greatest advantage to the Navy.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 43;

AYES.

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

Leng, Sir John

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Black, Alexander William

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

M'Crae, George

Toulmin, George

Causton, Richard Knight

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ure, Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, George (Norfolk)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Reckitt, Harold James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Rigg, Richard

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Robson, William Snowdon

Mr. Kearley and Mr. Runciman.

Joyce, Michael

Roe, Sir Thomas

Lambert, George

Rose, Charles Day

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Percy, Earl

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pretyman, Earnest George

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Green, W. Raymond (Cambs

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Groves, James Grimble

Purvis, Robert

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

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

Randles, John S.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bignold, Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renwick, George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Healy, Timothy Michael

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bond, Edward

Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bousfield, William Robert

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Brassey, Albert

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Russell, T. W.

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

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Chapman, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

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

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Lawson, John Grant

Spear, John Ward

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Lockie, John

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

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n N

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Valentia, Viscount

Denny, Colonel

Macdona, John Cumming

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Dickson, Charles Scott

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Doughty, George

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Morrell, George Herbert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Morrison, James Archibald

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Duke, Henry Edward

Mount, William Arthur

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Wood, James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Fisher, William Hayes

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flower, Ernest

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Forster, Henry William

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
Noes, 125. (Division List No. 44.)

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

POOR PRISONERS DEFENCE BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Birmingham District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The meeting of the Standing Orders Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.
Standing Orders Committee—Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Thames River Steamboat Service Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that Clause 27 be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for a Bill by the Jewish Colonisation Association ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
Read and agreed to.
Hexham Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Lima Railways Bill [H.L.]; Indiarubber, Guttapercha, and Telegraph Works Company Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
North's Navigation Collieries Bill [H.L.]; Faversham Gas Bill [H.L.]; Exeter Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
West Bromwich Corporation Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: Bill committed.
St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [H.L.]; All Saints, Poplar (Rate Abolition) Bill [H.L.]. Committed.
Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a [according to order].
Electric Lighting (London) Bill [H.L.]. Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Light Locomotives (Ireland) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [H.L.]; Rickmansworth Gas Bill [H.L.]; Pelican and British Empire Life Office Bill [H.L.]; Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [H.L.]; Southampton Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill [H.L.]: Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [H.L.]; Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.:

E. Romney.

L. Sandhurst.

L. Shute (V. Barrington.)

L. Newton (Chairman).

L. Wandsworth.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday the 30th of April next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [H.L.]; South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Sutton Cold-field Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Southern Tramways (Lancashire) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire) Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]: North Cheshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.:

E. Camperdown (Chairman)

E. Lytton.

L. Ellenborough.

L. Hylton.

L. Rosmead.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet

279
on Thursday the 30th of April next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2944. United States (Consular District of Baltimore).
  No. 2945. Germany (Estimates of German Empire).
  No. 2946. Chile (Coquimbo).

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Report and Papers relating to the training of teachers for the year 1901–1902.
INDIA (ENTERTAINMENT OF INDIAN AND COLONIAL GUESTS).
Correspondence relating to the entertainment of Indian and Colonial guests visiting this country by invitation of His Majesty's Government.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Return for the month of January, 1903.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Tables showing the populations of counties, districts, and boroughs in Scotland with reference to the proposals of the Bill.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS, AND VACCINATION.
Forty-eighth Annual Report of the Registrar-General in Scotland for the year 1902, and Thirty-eighth Annual Report on Vaccination.
Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT 1889.
University Court Ordinance No. VII. (Aberdeen, No. 1.) Foundation of the Burnett-Fletcher Chair of History and Archæology in the University of Aberdeen; laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and to be printed. (No. 24.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. con sidered [according to order], and suspended for this day's sitting.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported [according to order], and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a [according to order.]
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to amend Section (1) of Clause 16—which provides that "the insurable value, in the case of a steamship, includes also the machinery, boilers," etc.—by the insertion, after "steamship," of the words "or every vessel propelled by mechanical power." He hoped the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree that in a Bill which was intended to codify the law with regard to marine insurance, every case should be provided for. Electric launches and launches driven by petrol were becoming more greatly used every day. There was, for instance, to be a race between petrol launches at Cork on the occasion of the Gordon-Bennett race, and, of course, these would be valuable boats with exceedingly valuable machinery which could properly form the subject of marine insurance. He hoped the noble and learned Lord, with a view to completeness, would accept the words he had moved.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 16, line 28, after 'steamship' to insert 'or other vessel propelled by mechanical power.'"—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment. This Bill has been drafted by people who know thoroughly well what they are dealing with. I should despair of attempting to form any complete description of what should be the policy of marine insurance in respect of this particular mode of risk. I can assure the noble Earl that those who take a deep interest in this Bill would be very reluctant indeed to accept this Amendment. I do not know what the

281
future may bring forth with respect to such matters, but, at all events, if there is a development of new motive power, and the risks can be properly calculated by those who effect marine insurance, it must be done by persons who have contemplated all the risks that may arise. I am not disposed to put into a Bill that has been before the trade for five years an experimental clause, and one which might cause considerable embarrassment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STANDARD FOR RECRUITS.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the present standard as regards height and chest measurement for recruits for infantry of the line; what was the standard in January 1899; whether the Under Secretary can give further information regarding the new system of chest measurement mentioned in paragraph 35, page 8, of the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting: and whether he can give the average height and chest measurement of recruits for infantry of the line during the past year, also for the year 1898–99. I do not think the first two questions require any further comment from me. The only one which may, perhaps, require a little explanation is that which alludes to the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting. In the paragraph I have quoted, the Inspector-General states that an absolute minimum was laid down as regards chest measurement below which it was considered unsafe to enlist recruits. I should like to ask the noble Earl if he can tell me exactly what that minimum was. There is another statement in the Report to the effect that the system of chest measurement was based entirely on range of expansion. I would again ask the noble Earl to explain a little more in detail the system alluded to. Before the South African War the system of chest measurement, I think, was this—two measurements, the minimum and the maximum, were put down on the attestation paper of every recruit. I believe that system has now been
282
altered. I do not know whether only one measurement is now put down, but, at any rate, there are rumours that rather an elastic scheme has been allowed to creep into the present system. The question of chest measurement is, in my opinion, one of considerable importance and not unworthy of the attention of your Lordships, because it is chest measurement, as all medical men will agree, which gives a soldier the requisite power to endure the strain of modern warfare, which is as great if not greater than in former times. I think it would allay considerable uneasiness in those circles where a keen interest is taken in military affairs if the noble Earl could give a satisfactory answer to the questions I have ventured to ask.
THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWTCKE): I will endeavour to give the information which the noble Lord desires. He asks, in the first place, what is the present standard as regards height and chest measurement for recruits for infantry of the line. The present standard of height is 5 feet 3 inches. It was the same in January, 1899. The noble Lord next inquires whether I can give him further information regarding the new system of chest measurement. I will pass over that question for a moment and come to the last one, namely, whether I can give the average height and chest measurement of recruits for infantry of the line during the past year and also for the year 1898–99. I would refer the noble Lord to the Annual Report of the British Army for the latter year, which will give him part of the information he desires. I cannot give him the figures for the past year, for the reason that, as he himself has pointed out, a new system of chest measurement has been introduced. Under the old System no recruit was accepted, except as a "special," whose minimum chest measurement was less than 33 inches. But on 1st April last a new system was introduced, and this system was introduced in accordance with the Report of a Committee of experts, comprising military medical officers and civilian doctors. They examined the question very carefully, and, since April last, instead of taking the chest measurement—the girth of the chest when fully expanded is taken, and then, when the

283
recruit has ceased to "blow himself out"—I cannot for the moment think of a better term to express my meaning—the measurement is again taken, and if there is a difference of not less than 2 in. between the two measurements then the recruit is accepted, whereas if the difference is less than 2 in. he is not accepted. Since the introduction of the new system no man has been accepted for the Army who did not comply with those conditions. In future it is intended to issue a Return showing the average height, chest measurement, and weight of every recruit on enlistment. Then after he has completed six months service, and gone through gymnastic training, he will again be measured, and if he has not, according to the requirements laid down by the Committee to which I have referred, increased his physical development to the extent considered necessary, he will not be allowed to remain in the Army. When this Return is published, the noble Lord will see the exact extent to which every recruit developed after six months training in the service. I think I have given the noble Lord the information for which he has asked.
LORD DENMAN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the statement he has just made, but I should like to I know what the absolute minimum chest measurement laid down was.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: There is no minimum which can be said to apply to every recruit. It all depends upon his height and general physique. But I would refer the noble Lord to the Recruiting Regulations for 1902. If he will look on page 5, under "Test A," he will get the information he requires.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: As I understand the noble Earl refers to a Return for the year 1898—which gives average height and chest measurement of recruits for that period, I would suggest that, as he has the Blue-book in his hand, he should tell us what the average height and chest measurement was in that year, so that we can know whether the new measurement is to be greater or less than before.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The book consists of about 140 pages, and various statistics bearing on the subject are given. It would be very difficult for me to pick out the figures at this moment and give the noble Lord a definite answer to the Question he puts. He is quite welcome to the Book and can look for himself.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Do I understand that the War Office have not boiled down these 140 pages of statistics sufficiently to enable them to arrive at the average height and chest measurement? I suppose the Question has been on the Paper for some time.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: If I had known that the noble Lord wanted this worked out I would have taken the pains necessary to have had it done, but I think the House will perfectly understand that it is a matter of very small importance what the height or chest measurement of a man is after he has been in the service a certain number of years. What you want to know is what is the development of soldiers in the first six months of training, and that is what the War Office in the future are going to give very fully.
LORD DENMAN: Do I understand that the only test as regards chest measurement is whether or not the recruit can expand or contract his chest two inches? Is there no definite limit?
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: No. The minimum, as I have explained, is laid down according to the height and physical development of each man. You cannot lay down one minimum for all recruits. The test is whether a recruit can contract two inches after inflation. That is the principal test, and it is considered by the highest authorities whom we have been able to consult on the matter as absolutely necessary for the well being and the physical development of our Army.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: What is the irreducible minimum? Is the irreducible minimum the "blown out" recruit or the "unblown out" recruit? Surely the chest measurement of a man is not taken when he is "blown out" but when he is in his normal condition.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The irreducible minimum is the "blown out" recruit.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I think it will have to be stated in an algebraic equation.

QUEENSLAND AND THE REPATRIATION OF KANAKAS.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a cablegram which appeared in the issue of the Daily Mail of the 21st instant, having reference to the deportation of Kanakas from Queensland; whether any communication as alleged has been received from Captain Rason, R.N., the British resident in the New Hebrides. I do not myself understand how the situation described by Captain Rason can have yet arisen but perhaps it is a forecast of what may occur in 1906. I would also ask what protective measures in the interest of returned Pacific Islanders have been adopted by the Commonwealth Government in accordance with the statement made by the noble Earl in this House, and whether these are framed on the previous regulations of the Queensland Government, or whether fresh ones have been substituted. In reply to a Question put on my behalf last December by my noble friend Lord Stanmore, the Under Secretary stated that the South Sea Islanders were not British subjects.† I venture to think that that was hardly correct, because they are largely recruited from islands which are for the most part under British jurisdiction. I should have thought, therefore, that they were entitled to be treated as British subjects.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I am a subscriber to the Daily Mail, but I do not know that I read it with very great care every day. As soon as the noble Lord's Question appeared on the Paper, however, I made it my business to read the cablegram to which he has referred, and I venture to think that it partakes of a somewhat sensational character. I gather from the terms of the cablegram that any unfortunate Kanaka who returned to his
† See (4) Debates, cxvi., 1459.
286
country would immediately be killed, cooked, and eaten, on the most approved principles. I really think that that is a very great exaggeration; and even if it were true that there is a prospect of these persons being killed, every precaution will be taken to see that they do not go back to the place where any such fate might await them. Captain Rason is at this moment in Queensland, and his special business is to go among the Kanakas, who, under the Act, will shortly be repatriated to their own country, and to inform them of what opportunities are available for them. If there is the slightest danger, or even if they fear there is the slightest danger, in their own part of the world, there are many places open to them in the New Hebrides and Solomon Islands, and elsewhere, where the planters will be only too glad to avail themselves of their services. I cannot help thinking that when we get Captain Rason's report we shall find that he has been able to give them assurances and to make provision for their being taken to some part of the British possessions, or to islands under the British protectorate, where they will be sure of good and safe treatment. The noble Lord found some fault with a remark I made when my noble friend Lord Stanmore put a Question to me at the end of last session, to the effect that these Kanakas were not British subjects. Many of them come from islands that are certainly not part of the British possessions, some of them are not even within the sphere of influence of Great Britain, and residence in Queensland does not make them British subjects. But none the less His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia recognise that it is their duty to give every facility for the protection of these men, just the same as if they were subjects of His Majesty.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his satisfactory answer. I have got what I was anxious to obtain, namely, the appointment of an official to safeguard the interest of these Kanakas. But I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will undertake that this Report, when it is received from Captain Rason, will be laid on the Table; whether the Federal Government have drawn up a series of

287
regulations which can also be printed and laid on the Table of the House, or whether they are acting simply on the regulations which the Queensland Government have been acting upon hitherto. In any case I think the regulations should be made public.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I can meet the wishes of the noble Lord best by laying on the Table of the House the communication we have received from the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia enclosing a memorandum from the Ministers in response to a request from His Majesty's Government that they would take every precaution to see that these men were properly treated. I do not know whether they are being returned to their islands under the Queensland regulations, or under a fresh set of regulations, but I will inquire, and if I find that the regulations can be laid on the Table I will certainly adopt that course.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 2a (The Earl Waldegrave). Committee negatived. Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till Twelve o'clock.