Sitting of 9 August 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Leyton Urban District Council Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday (Evening sitting).
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. To be considered To-morrow, and to be printed, [Bill 300.]
Ayr Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. To be con-
1540
sidered To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 301.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Leeds University Bill; Electric Lighting (London) Bill, without Amendment.
Licensing Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill; Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill; Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Bridlington Corporation Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]; Buxton Urban District Council I Bill [Lords]; Trafford Park Bill [Lords]; Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords]; Belfast and North East Ireland Electricity and Power-Gas Bill [Lords]; Belfast Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to Regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland." [Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to, confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Sewage)." [Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill. That they have come to the following Resolution, viz.:—
That the Promoters of the Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill have leave Ito suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and

1541
that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid.
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages.
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session; and desire the concurrence of this House in such Resolution.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)moved that the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:—
In page 57, Standing Order 9, paragraph (2), line 2, after the word "taking," to insert the words "or compulsory user."
In Standing Order 9, paragraph (2), line 3, after the word "taking," to insert the words "or compulsory user."
In Standing Order 9, paragraph (3), line 2, after the word "taking," to insert the words "or compulsory user."
In Standing Order 9, paragraph (3), line 3, after the word "taking" to insert the words "or compulsory user."
In Standing Order 9, paragraph (3), line 13, after the word "taken," to insert the words "or compulsorily used."
In Standing Order 9, paragraph (3), line 15, after the word "taking," to insert the words "or compulsory user."
In page 60, Standing Order 24, at end, after the word "Agriculture," to add the words "and Fisheries."
In page 61, Standing Order 26, line 4, to leave out the words "Fisheries and."
In page 61, Standing Order 26a, line 5, after the words "of the," to insert the words "Board of Agriculture and."
In page 61, Standing Order 26a, line 6 to leave out the words "and Harbour Department of the Board of Trade."
In page 62, Standing Order 30, at end, after the word "Agriculture," to add the words "and Fisheries."
In page 63, Standing Order 33, paragraph (4), line 2, to leave out the words "Fisheries and."
In page 63, Standing Order 33, paragraph (5), line 3, after the words "of the," to insert the words "Board of Agriculture and."
In page 63, Standing Order 33, paragraph (5), lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words "and Harbour Department of the Board of Trade."
In page 63, Standing Order 33, paragraph (7), line 7, to leave out the word "labouring," and to insert the word "working."
In page 64, Standing Order 33, paragraph (14), line 6 after the word "Agriculture," to insert the words "and Fisheries."
In page 64, Standing Order 33, paragraph (14), at end, after the word "Agriculture," to add the words "and Fisheries."
In page 65, to leave out Standing Order 38, and to insert new Standing Order 38—
38. Where any Bill contains or revives or extends power to take compulsorily or by agreement any land in any local area as defined for the purposes of this Order, and such taking involves, or may involve, the taking in that area of any house or houses occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons of the working class, whether as tenants or lodgers, the promoters shall deposit in the Private Bill Office, and at the office of the central authority, on or before the 21st day of December, a statement giving the description and postal address of each of such houses, its number on the deposited plans, the parish in which it is situate, and the number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons of the working class residing

1543
in it, and also a copy of so much of the deposited plans (if any) as re ates thereto.
This Order shall not apply where a statement in pursuance of this Order was deposited in respect of the Act, the powers of which are proposed to be revived or extended.
For the purposes of this Order the expression "local area" means—

(1) as respects London the Administrative County of London.

(2) as respects England and Wales (outside London) any borough, or other urban district, and elsewhere than in a borough or other urban district, any parish.

(3) as respects Scotland, any district within the meaning of The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; and

(4) as respects Ireland, any urban district.

The expression "house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.
The expression "working class" means mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons, other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them.
The expression "central authority" means, as regards London, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, as regards England and Wales, outside London, the Local Government Board, as regards Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland, and, as regards Ireland, the Local Government Board for Ireland.
The expression "Bill" includes a Bill confirming a Provisional Order.
In page 80, Standing Order 76, line 3, after the word "England," to insert the words "or in Ireland."
In Standing Order 76, line 4, after the word "oaths," to insert the word "and."
In Standing Order 76, to leave out from the word "and," in line 5, to end of Order.
In page 81, Standing Order 84, line 11, after the words "Agriculture," to insert the words "and Fisheries."
In page 86, Standing Order 128, line 7, after the word "Bills," to insert the words "originating in this House."
In page 87, to leave out Standing Order 133a, and insert new Standing Order 133a—
133a. Where any society or association sufficiently representing a trade, business, or interest in any district to which any Bill relates, petition against the Bill alleging that such trade, business, or interest will be injuriously affected by the provisions contained therein, it shall be competent to the Referees on Private Bills, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the Bill or any part thereof.
In page 88, Standing Order 141, line 4, after the word "England," to insert the words "or in Ireland."
In Standing Order 141, line 5, after the word "Oaths," to insert the word "and."
In Standing Order 141, to leave out from the word "and," in line 6, to the end of the Order.
In page 99, Standing Order 184, line 2, after the word "land," to insert the words "in Scotland or Ireland."
In Standing Order 184, paragraph (1), to leave out from the second word "in," in line 2, to the second word "more," in line 3, and to insert the words "any house or."
In Standing Order 184, paragraph (1), line 4, after the word "by," to insert the words "thirty or more."
In Standing Order 184, paragraph (1), line 4, to leave out the word "labouring," and insert the word "working."
In page 100, Standing Order 184, to leave out from the words "the Committee," in line 15 of the page, to the word "Bill," in line 20.
In page 108, Standing Order 207, at end, add—
Provided that where any such Opposed Private Business is set down to be taken at the beginning of an Evening Sitting and is disposed of, any Motion contingent directly or otherwise thereon may with

1545
the assent of the Chair be considered and disposed of at the same sitting.
In page 119, insert new Standing Order 254a—
254a. Where, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Procedure Act, a Confirmation Bill has been referred to a Joint Committee, the Committee of this House shall consist of three members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
MR. J. W. LOWTHERexplained that the first batch of Amendments were purely formal, being necessitated by the transference of the Fisheries from the Board of Trade to the Agricultural Department. The proposed new Standing Order 38 was necessary for this reason. Last session, under the Housing of the Working Class Act, a new principle was adopted that, where land was taken compulsorily, the actual number of the working classes should be ascertained and provision made accordingly. It therefore became necessary to amend the Standing Order. The Amendment to Standing Order 76, to insert on page 80, after "England" the words "or in Ireland" was simply in order to enable affidavits which had to be sworn and produced before the examiners to be taken in Ireland in the same way as they were taken in England, namely, before a commissioner qualified to administer oaths. Under the Standing Order, as it stood at present, they had to be taken before assistant barristers, which office, he was told, had become obsolete. The next Amendment of some importance was 133a, "Locus Standi of Associations, etc." This went one step further than they hail hitherto gone and would make it possible, subject to the assent of the Court of Referees, for any bona-fide associations, which it could be proved to the Court of Referees were likely to be injuriously affected by any Private Bill, to be heard. This had really been forced upon the Court of Referees by reason of cases that had come before them from time to time where associations wished to be heard, but could not be heard. Then the last Order but one on the Paper related to the arrangement of private business. At present any Instruction upon an opposed Private Bill could not be taken at the same evening's
1546
sitting, but this Amendment would make it possible to do so. It would not put private Members in any better position. Objection being taken by Mr. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis) to an Amendment to Standing Order 33, consideration of the Motion was postponed till Thursday at the evening sitting.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Bethnal Green, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SANDGATE HOMES (PATTPER INMATES CHARGEABLE TO METROPOLITAN UNIONS).
  Return [presented 8th August] to be printed. [No. 323.]
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 324.]
LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 325.]
INSPECTION OF MEAT.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th July; Mr. Field]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 326.]
CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Copy presented, of Return of the Amount payable on 5th January, 1904, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
Copy presented, of Appendix to the Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 5, 1904).
Copy presented, of Accession of China to the Convention signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, dated 29th June, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented, of Diplomatic Consular Reports, Annual Series, 3250 [by Command]; to lie upon Table.
COLONIAL STATISTICS.
Copy presented, of Statistical Tables relating to British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates. Part XXVII. for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (COLONIES).
Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the several British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates in each year from 1889 to 1903, Forty-first Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES, 1904.
Copy presented, of Return relating to the Rates of Import Duties levied upon the principal and other Articles imported into the British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "for the years 1902–3 and 1903–4, respectively, giving (1) the names of the Training Colleges in Ireland, whether under the management of the National Board or under local management, on behalf of which application was made to the Commissioners of National Education within the last three years to sanction an increase in the number of King's Scholars which each such College was authorised to admit to training; (2) the number of King's Scholars in each such case which each such College was authorised to admit at the time of the
1548
above application; (3) the increased number of King's Scholars asked to be authorised for admission in each case; (4) the decisions of the Commissioners of National Education in each case, giving, if the decision was favourable, the increase authorised in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 288, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Boland.)

CASUALTIES TO SHIPS.
Return ordered, "of Casualties to Ships, showing the date, the name and class of the Ship damaged, the nature of the accident, the number of persons injured, the number of deaths (if any), the result of any inquiry that may have been held into the circumstances, and time in dockyard for repairs, during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 317, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Lough.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Management of Cells at Police Stations— Suggested Inquiry.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the conditions connected with the management of cells at police stations; and whether he will consider the desirability of instituting, at an early date, an inquiry into this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My attention has not been specially called to this subject. Upon the information at present before me I have no reason to suppose that an inquiry such as the hon. Member has suggested to me is necessary; but if he is in possession of any evidence tending to show that there is need for an inquiry I shall be happy to consider it.

  Denbighshire Burial Dispute.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the refusal on the 20th May by the Rector of Clocaenog, Denbighshire, of the parish bier for the

  1549
  interment of the late Mr. John Hughes, a parishioner, under The Burial Law (Amendment) Act, 1880; whether he is aware that difficulties under such circumstances frequently occur with regard to the use of the parish bier; and whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any legislation on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douylas.) I have made the inquiries which I promised in this matter and have received a report of the facts. I can, however, only say that I have no authority to determine what is the law. or to intervene in the matter. However much such difficulties are to be regretted, I do not think that legislation is called for.

  Audit of Local Authorities Accounts.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee to consider the audit of the accounts of local authorities has now been appointed; if so, whether it is preliminary or supplemental to or in substitution of the conference unanimously recommended by the Municipal Trading Committee; if preliminary or supplemental, at what date the conference will be convened; if in substitution, what are the reasons for disregarding the Report of the Committee; and what steps will be taken to give effect to its recommendation that it is desirable that the opinion of professional accountants should be obtained as to the best means of prescribing and auditing the accounts of local authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The object of the Departmental Committee will be to deal with the question raised in paragraph 9 of the Report of the Joint Committee on Municipal Trading as to the practicability of a standard form of accounts for local authorities being prescribed. I have not at present been able to appoint the members of the Departmental Committee, but I contemplate that in connection with it the opinion of professional accountants will be obtained. I am only concerned with the accounts of local authorities in England and Wales, and I think that by the adoption of the course which I propose I shall obtain expert
  1550
  evidence of the kind referred to in the Question, and also other evidence which it is desirable I should have to enable me to decide as to the form of accounts to be kept.

  Rails and Engineering Plant ordered by London County Council from British and Foreign Firms.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the value of the orders for rails and engineering plant respectively, placed by the London County Council with British and foreign firms respectively, for each of the last three years.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am not in possession of the particulars asked for, but I have communicated with the County Council on the subject. I am informed that there is no complete Return from which the information desired could be readily given. I am promised, however, that it shall be collected and sent to me as soon as it can be obtained. On its receipt, I will communicate with my hon. friend.

  Housing Acts—Concentration of Administration
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can now state what progress has been made during the last three months to concentrate, in accordance with the Housing Act of 1903, the administration of the Housing Acts in the Local Government Board; and whether the administration of those Acts is still distributed between various Departments; and, if so, will he explain why no steps have been taken to carry out the transfer, which he has stated he is willing should be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A portion of the administration of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts is vested in the Secretary of Stat, and has not at present been transferred to the Local Government Board. As I have previously stated, I am quite willing that the transfer should be made, but it has been desired that there should be some transfer of work from the Local Government Board to the Home Office in exchange. This is

  1551
  difficult to arrange, but the matter has not been lost sight of.

  Explosions caused by Leakage of Electric Current and Escaped Gas.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, during the two years ending the 30th June last, the Metropolitan Police reported twenty-one explosions resulting in injury to eleven persons, and the death of two horses caused through leakage in an electric wire coming into contact with escaped gas; will he state how many of these explosions occurred in the streets of the Metropolis in connection with telegraph and telephone plant; and to what extent the persons injured have been compensated.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have seen the reply of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary of the 28th ultimo, †giving the number of accidents mentioned by the hon. Member, but I am quite unable to admit that any of them could have been caused by the leakage of electricity from telegraph or telephone wires. There have been several explosions of gas in the street boxes belonging to the Post Office, but in none of these has it appeared that the Department was liable to pay compensation. I may add that some of the recent cases are under investigation, with a view to ascertain the true cause of the explosions.

  Promotion of Assistant Postmen at Glasgow.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORTo ask the Postmaster-General, if his attention has been directed to the position of assistant postmen at present employed at Glasgow; and, if so, will he say what steps does he propose taking with a view to accelerating the advancement of these men with over four years service to the establishment.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that there are several assistant postmen at Glasgow with more that four years service. As vacancies occur on the established force of postmen they are nominated to one-half of the
  See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 1444.
  1552
  vacancies, the other half going to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. I may add that during the past year about 80 appointments have been made to the class of town postmen, of which about 40 have been filled from the class of assistant postmen. I will make inquiry as to whether it is possible to accelerate the advancement to the established class of the assistant postmen of long service.

  Seventh Hour Daily Attendance— Extension of Leave of Postal Officials.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why, when the seventh hour daily attendance was imposed on the Civil Service under the Order in Council of August. 1890, the additional annual leave permitted under that Order to Civil servants in receipt of more than £350 a year was not extended to the Post Office as well as to other Departments of the Civil Service.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not aware that ally additional annual leave was granted under the Order in Council of August, 1890, as compensation for additional daily attendance. The arrangements in the Post Office as regards leave differ from those in force in most of the public Departments; and I do not consider that it is advisable to make an y alteration in them.

  Ventilation and Cleaning of Belfast Sorting Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can say when it is proposed to provide the additional ventilation in the Belfast sorting office sanctioned a considerable time ago; and will proper steps be taken to have the printed regulations regarding dusting and cleaning strictly observed in the sorting office.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I understand that a contract for the work has been made, and that it will be begun in a few days. The dusting and cleaning of the office are, I am assured, properly attended to.

  Superannuation of Mr. Murray, of Post Office Savings Bank Department.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Postmaster-General

  1553
  whether he is aware that a clerk named Murray, recently employed at the Savings Bank Department, London, has been placed on pension on the ground of ill-health, notwithstanding the fact that the specialist who examined him asserted that his ill-health was only temporary; and whether he will state the reason for superannuating a young officer of good conduct and service.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that a clerk named Murray for-merely employed at the Sayings Bank Department has recently been pensioned on the ground of ill-health. Mr. Murray subsequently appealed for reinstatement in the service and submitted a medical certificate in support of his appeal. Since then he has been examined by the Chief Medical Officer of my Department who reported that it would not be advisable to give him a further trial at present, but that the matter might be further considered in twelve months time. The case will accordingly be reviewed at the expiration of that period.

  Foundation Managers of Carnarvonshire National Schools.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will say, as the result of inquiries made under the supervision of the Board, what variations have been sanctioned in the case of six national schools in the county of Carnarvon as to the proportion of foundation managers whether, seeing that these schools have been generally recognised as Church schools for many years, and are in union by their trust deeds with the National Society, he will state on what grounds the variations are being sanctioned; and whether a like process is to be applied to non-provided schools in other counties.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the character of these schools. One of them is not in union with any denomination or society. In several, Church of England teaching has not been given for more than a quarter of a century; and in all of them the principles upon which the education given in the school has been conducted
  1554
  in the past were such as, in accordance with Section 11 (4) of the Act, the Board were bound to take into account in making orders for the appointment of foundation managers. As a result the Board have broadened the method of appointment of certain of the foundation managers, and in certain eases the requirement that a manager should be a member of the Church of England has been withdrawn. It is clearly impossible for me to say beforehand whether Section 11 (4) will apply to any cases which may arise in the future. Each case must be considered on its merits when it arises, and, if necessary, after a local public inquiry.

  Value of Imports of Manufactured and partly Manufactured Articles.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, can he state or give a Return stating for the years 1902 and 1903 respectively the total value of imports into the United Kingdom of manufactured articles, and the total value of imports into the United Kingdom of partly-manufactured articles.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, can he explain why the table on page 5 of the Fiscal Blue-book, Cd. 1761, of 1903, which is declared on page 3 to be a continuation of the classification of Paper No. 102, of 1885 (in continuation of Paper No. 362, of 1882) fails to separate, as Paper No. 102 separates, the imports of manufactured from the imports of partly-manufactured goods, and gives only the total of both together; and will he give as a Return a Paper in continuation of Paper No. 102, of 1885, separating the two in the same manner for the years 1884 to 1903 inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Memorandum referred to was intended to compare the growth of the foreign trade in manufactures of the United Kingdom and certain foreign countries. These foreign countries make no distinction in their trade accounts between "manufactured" and "partly-manufactured articles," both being included under the category "manufactures." Hence, for the purpose of the Memorandum,

  1555
  no separation of these classes was required in the case of the United Kingdom figures. The categories of manufactured articles in the official trade accounts of the United Kingdom have recently been carefully revised and improved, and it is not expedient that any fresh Return should follow precisely the old and imperfect classification used in the Return of 1885. A Memorandum, however, dealing with the whole subject of the statistics of our imports and exports of manufactured and partly manufactured articles, with comparative figures over a period of years, is being prepared for publication, and I trust that this will give my hon. friend the information he desires.

  Prison Officials' Quarters.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the building of additional quarters for the fifty officers at Dartmoor Convict Prison, as land is available upon which the necessary accommodation could be provided by the Government, in order to remove the difficulty that working men in Princetown now have in securing houses at rents within their means, in consequence of the competition for house room in the township by the prison staff for whom the Government have hitherto failed to provide quarters; and whether he will furnish a Return of the number of officers of each of His Majesty's prisons who are not provided with quarters by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) No progress has been made with the building of additional quarters at Dartmoor, as no funds for that purpose are available in the present financial year. When the Estimates for next year are being prepared the needs of Dartmoor, in this respect, shall be considered; but I must add a warning that there are other prisons which may have a stronger claim than Dartmoor, where the great majority of the officers are already provided with quarters. If my hon. friend moves for the Return he mentions I shall be prepared to give it.

  Alleged Excessive Sentence on Native at Dibrugarh, Assam.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Commissioner Clifford recently sentenced a native of India at Dibrugarh, Assam, to two years rigorous imprisonment and three months solitary confinement for being found drunk in a house into which he had trespassed; and will he order some inquiry with a view to a remission of part of the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no information regarding the case referred to in the Question. If the facts were as stated it was open to the accused to appeal to the Sessions or High Court, and the case might also have been represented to the Chief Commissioner and the Government of India. I have no reason to suppose that any of these authorities would have refused any relief that was proper in the circumstances, and I do not propose to order an inquiry.

  Complaints against Royal Irish Constabulary.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the expediency of issuing a notice that representations affecting the conduct or character of individual members of the Royal Irish Constabulary will only be considered by the Chief Secretary's Department if they have been made through the Constabulary Office, where they will be treated in all cases as public documents and be reported upon as such.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The step suggested by my right hon. and gallant friend is, I think, unnecessary. All uch representations are considered by the Inspector-General as head of the force. If, as sometimes happens, representations are made to the Chief Secretary's Department they are referred to the Inspector-General who treats them as public documents and reports upon them as such.

  Military Finance—Recommendations of Public Accounts Committee and War Office Reconstitution Committee.
  MAJOR EVANS CORDON: To ask the Secretary

  1557
  of State for War whether his attention has been called to the criticism of the Committee of Public Accounts on the war expenditure of 1902–3; and whether, in view of the conditions exposed thereby, the recommendations of the War office Reconstitution Committee with regard to military finance in peace time and in the field in time of war, set forth in Part II., Sections 2 and 3, of their Report, have been, or will be, adopted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is proposed to adopt in the main the recommendations of the War Office Reconstitution Committee regarding military finance in peace and war. As regards the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, I must point out that while it alludes to certain defects which it is hoped will be remedied by the changes proposed, many of the criticisms are not directed against the War Office.

  Niger and Lake Chad Boundary Commission.
  MR. NORMAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost of the Boundary Commission commanded by Captain Elliot in surveying the frontier line between the Niger and Lake Chad; and will he state briefly what the Commission has accomplished.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The complete accounts of the expenditure incurred on this Boundary Commission have not yet been received, but the total expenditure may be estimated at from £9,000 to £10,000. Lieutenant-Colonel Elliot, R.E., and the officers who assisted him have made a careful survey of the whole of the frontier, some 900 miles in length, no portion of which had been accurately mapped before; and have, in conjunction with the French members of the Joint Commission, determined the positions of a very large number of towns and villages in the regions traversed by them, which were previously unmarked on any map or which had been open to dispute.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Conveyance of Explosives on Passenger Steamers.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admir-
  1558
  alty whether it is the custom of the Admiralty to ship high explosives in large quantities upon British passenger steamers; and whether, seeing that these steamers do not accept similar freight from private shippers, he will state under what sanction the Admiralty acts in contradiction to regulations which have been thought necessary for the safety of the travelling public.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): It is not unusual for the Admiralty to ship explosives upon British passenger steamers, as in view of the excellence of the manufacture, the special way in which they are packed, and the fact that they are always carried in specially constructed magazines, the fear of accident is most remote. It is not correct to say that these steamers do not accept explosives from private shippers for conveyance, and the Admiralty are not aware of any such regulations as those referred to.

  Niger and Lake Chad Boundary Commission.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost of the Boundary Commission commanded by Captain Elliot in surveying the frontier line between the Niger and Lake Chad; and will he state briefly what the Commission has accomplished.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The complete accounts of the expenditure incurred on this Boundary Commission have not vet been received, but the total expenditure may be estimated at from £9,000 to £10,000. Lieutenant-Colonel Elliot, R.E., and the officers who assisted him have made a careful survey of the whole of the frontier, some 900 miles in length, no portion of which had been accurately mapped before; and have, in conjunction with the French members of the Joint Commission, determined the positions of a very large number of towns and villages in the regions traversed by them, which were previously unmarked on any map, or which had been open to dispute.

  British Indians in South Africa.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations carried on by him with Lord Milner regarding the general treatment of British Indian subjects in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony have been concluded; whether he has arrived at any settlement of the question as repeatedly promised by him; and, if so, will he state the particulars regarding it.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The dispatch addressed to Lord Milner and fully setting forth the views briefly summarised in my speech of 21st July will reach him shortly. Obviously a final settlement cannot be announced till I have considered his reply.

  Indian Finance—Indian Troops lent for Imperial Purposes.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state approximately to what extent the finances of India will be relieved during the current year through the loan of Indian troops for Imperial services outside India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Government of India have informed me that the saving to Indian revenues in the current year through the absence of Indian troops lent for imperial purposes will be approximately as follows:—
  Troops in China (savings calculated to end of year) £48,200. Troops in Somaliland (savings calculated to 30th Sept.) £42,800. Total—£91,000.

  Indians in Japan.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether one of His Majesty's Indian subjects has been requested to return from Japan to India; and, if so, will he state under what circumstances.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no knowledge of the case to which the hon. Member's Question refers.

  Indian Aristocracy and the Imperial Cadet Corps.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many members of the Indian aristocracy are at present receiving military education in the Imperial Cadet Corps recently founded by the Viceroy; and how many commissions as British officers it is proposed to confer annually.
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of members of the Indian aristocracy receiving military education in the Imperial Cadet Corps is, according to the latest information available, twenty-two. So far as I am at present aware, it is not proposed to confer any fixed number of commissions annually on members of the corps.
  MR. MACVEAGH: What is the definition of an Indian aristocrat?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Egyptian Finance.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the accumulated funds and annual revenue now and hereafter to be placed at the disposal of the Egyptian Government, by virtue of the Anglo-French Agreement, will he state the financial programme that the British advisers to the Egyptian Government propose to recommend.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The hon. Member will find in the Blue-book, Egypt, No. 2 (1904) which has just been laid before Parliament a despatch from Lord Cromer dated the 22nd of April last describing the financial programme which he recommends.

  Tung-ting Lake.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say whether the German Government is endeavouring to acquire from the Chinese Government a lease of the Tung-ting Lake, in the Yang-tse Valley, for the purpose of naval manœuvres; and can he make any further statement on the subject.
  EARL PERCY: No Sir. We understand that there is no truth in the report referred to.

  Wei-hai-wei.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether any negotiations have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government with a view to a modification of the terms upon which Wei-hai-wei is held; and, if so, will he state whether His Majesty's Government proposes to retain Wei-hai-wei by purchase or otherwise in case the present lease should determine.
  EARL PERCY: The Answer to the first Question is in the negative. I can make no statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in hypothetical circumstances.

  Dutch Colonial Authorities and Mr. John Godden.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received to the representations made to the Government of the Netherlands respecting the wrongs inflicted by the Dutch Colonial authorities upon a British subject, Mr. John Godden.
  EARL PERCY: Sir, I regret that we have not yet received a reply, but the Government of the Netherlands have assured us that the question is receiving their careful consideration.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER: Does the noble Lord expect a reply at an early date?
  EARL PERCY: I hope so, but our last representation to the Netherlands Government was only addressed to it a fortnight ago.

  The Postmaster-General's Report.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that the Postmaster-General's Report has for several years past been issued after the rising of the House, will he take such
  1562
  steps as may be necessary to secure the issue of the Report during the session.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am not aware that the Postmaster-General's Report has for several years past been issued after the rising of the House. My Report for the past financial year has now been laid upon the Table of the House and I have every hope that it will be ready for distribution before the close of the present session.

  Examination of Stock of Stamps, etc., of Post Office Counter Clerks in London.
  MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that counter clerks in London are entrusted with certain stock, stamps, and postal orders, for which they are held responsible, and that the stock is periodically checked by officials from the Controlling Office, who open the safe and cupboards frequently in the absence of the men affected, he will direct that the clerk with whom the property is entrusted shall always be present when the accounting takes place.
  LORD STANLEY: The examination of the whole of the stocks of stamps, postal orders, cash in hand, etc., at each office, has to be made at one time as the separate sub-stocks form part of a whole balance. So far as is possible the examination of the sub-stocks are made in the presence of the officer holding the sub-stock, but when owing to his not being on duty this cannot be done, the officer's interests are safeguarded by the examination being made in the presence of one of his colleagues, who witnesses the counting of the money, stamps, etc, and the replacing of the stock in the safe under lock and key.

  Duties on Publicans' Licences.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the disparity in the scale of Excise duties on publicans' licences, the smaller houses paving at the rate of 50 per cent. of their annual value; and whether he can now give an estimate of the addition to the revenue which would be effected by imposing on all houses a

  1563
  uniform duty equal to 50 per cent. of their annual value.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I am aware of the disparity referred to by the hon. Member but it must not be supposed that the volume of business is always in proportion to the annual value of the premises. It is roughly estimated that the total annual value of public-houses (exclusive of hotels) in England and Wales is about £7,000,000. If 50 per cent. of this sum were taken as licence duty, it would amount to £3,500,000.

  Agricultural Depression.
  MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state how many acres of agricultural land have gone out of cultivation in England and Wales since 1874; and whether he can state the total rateable value of rural districts in England and Wales in 1873 and 1903 respectively.
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: A comparison of the Agricultural Returns of England and Wales for 1874 and 1903 shows in the latter year a decrease of 2,683,639 acres of land under the plough and an increase of 3,448,321 acres under permanent pasture. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am informed by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board that the total rateable value of the rural sanitary districts in England and Wales for the year 1873–74, as shown in No. 3 Abstract of the Local Taxation Returns for that year, was £53,191,434; and according to the statements annexed to the reports of the union; assessment committees, the rateable value of the rural sanitary districts at Ladyday, 1903, was £52,565,185. In connection with the decrease in the rateable value it must be remembered that the total area under the jurisdiction of the rural sanitary authorities has been much reduced in the interval by the formation and extension of urban districts.

  Houses of Parliament—Members' Post Office.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if, during the coming Parliamentary vacation, he will arrange for the enlargement of the Members' Lobby Post Office; and, also, will have a series of pigeon-holes, one for each Member, placed in sight of the windows in such a position that Members may, without asking an attendant, see if there are any letters or documents in his pigeon-hole, and thus save the trouble of the attendants looking over bundles of unsorted Papers while the Member waits.
  LORD BALCARRES: The question of further accommodation for the Members' Lobby Post Office has been often considered, but no enlargement is practicable, and there is absolutely no space for a range of 670 pigeon-holes. Some relief might he possible if hon. Members would use the Central Lobby Post Office for a greater portion of their telegraphic business; the accommodation there has recently been much improved.

  Kingston Estate Evicted Tenants.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether application for reinstatement to their holdings have been received by the Estates Commissioners from Mr. Thomas Kent and Mrs. O'Brien, evicted tenants on the Kingston Estate; and whether, before the Estates Commissioners sanction the sale of this estate to the occupying tenants, an inquiry will be made into the circumstances of Mr. Thomas Kent and Mrs. O'Brien's cases, with the view of their reinstatement to their holdings on this estate.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Applications have been received from these evicted tenants, but so far the estate has not been brought before the Commissioners to be dealt with.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the circumstances under which the Commissioners of National Education resolved not to recognise any newly-organised school, the teacher of which may have received dismissal by late manager; and what steps does he propose taking to prevent dismissal of teachers whose conduct is good and whose services have proved satisfactory.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners have not adopted the course suggested in the first part of the Question. Under the terms of Rule 44 (d) the local manager is the person charged with the appointment and removal of a teacher, and so long as the Rules are complied with the Commissioners do not interfere with him in the matter.

  Mitchelstown Rent Appeal.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whet her he is aware that at a recent hearing before Mr. Justice FitzGerald, the rent of the holding of Mr. Patrick Ahern, Ballylough, Mitchelstown, which had been fixed at £44 15s. by the Sub-Commission, was raised to £47 2s. 6d.; and if he will state whether any fresh evidence as to value was given before the Court, if the holding was inspected, and by whom.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Commission Court decides judicially in each case after hearing the evidence of the parties upon consideration of the report of the valuers, and of all the circumstances of the case, holding and district. I cannot further discuss the decisions of the Judicial Commissioners.

  Belfast Sorter's Wage Grievance.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state under what circumstances the wages of a sorter named Stevenson in the Belfast office were stopped on the 28th of last month, the date on which he met with a bathing accident; if he can say whether it is customary in the Post Office for officials meeting with accidents of such a character to be dismissed from the
  1566
  service from the date of such an accident; and does the dismissal of Stevenson relieve the medical officer of any further responsibility for his medical treatment, and to what extent; and did this consideration count when the report leading to dismissal was prepared.
  LORD STANLEY: I am making inquiry on the subject of the hon. Member's Question and will inform him of the result.

  Belfast Post Office—Cloak-room Accommodation.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Post master-General whether, seeing that the battery room is just vacated in the Belfast office, he will arrange for it to be converted into a cloak-room for the use of sorting clerks and telegraphists on the postal side of the establishment, thus leaving the smaller room presently in use as a cloak-room for the supervising staff, for whom he has already undertaken to provide cloak-room accommodation.
  LORD STANLEY: The subject of the hon. Member's Question is under inquiry and I will communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

  Belfast Boy Sorter's Illness.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can explain why a boy sorter, named Wilson, in Belfast office, suffering front acute nervous prostration, was severely cautioned for leaving his lodgings in Belfast and going to his home in the country, by the instructions of two qualified medical practitioners whom he consulted; is he aware that the medical officer at Belfast, in reporting this case, informed the postmaster that the practice of officials taken ill in town and going to their homes in the country should be stopped; and, if so, will he take steps to provide the necessary attendance of youths who may be taken ill and who are debarred from going to their homes; and will he direct the record against Wilson to be cancelled.
  LORD STANLEY: I am making inquiry on the subject of the hon. Member's Question and will inform him of the result.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCEasked as to the business to be taken after the close of Supply and especially as to Order No. 11, the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill; also when the Licensing Bill might be expected from the Lords?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot quite state when the Lords Amendments to the Licensing Bill will be taken. I am informed that they are not of a far-reaching character. After Supply to-night I propose to take, as the first order, the Welsh Education (Local Authority Default) Bill, and the Cunard Agreement (Money) Bill, the Capital Expenditure (Money) Bill, the Capital Expenditure Laws Continuance Bill, and the Isle of Man Customs Bill.
MR. LOUGH: Why not take the Shops Hours Bill
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be glad to take it, hut it is better as a rule to get rid of the contentious Bills first.
MR. BLAKE: Is it the intention of the Government to take the Irish Land Bill to-night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The Irish Land Bill will not be taken tonight.

LICENSING BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 298.]
WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 299.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Report brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 327.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Rufus Daniel Isaacs, esquire, K.C., for the Borough of Reading.

SUPPLY [22ND ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS IV.
  I. £1,550, to complete the sum for National Gallery, etc., Scotland.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid he desired to call attention to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Scotch Office to investigate the administration of the National Art and Portrait Galleries at Edinburgh. He thought Scotch Members would do well to inquire into a matter of so much importance to Scotchmen, and he protested against the Scotch Estimates having been relegated to so late a date in a session so barren of Scotch legislation. He knew there were many subjects in the Report of the Committee which required further inquiry before the recommendations could be realised, and he would confine himself to two or three points with which he thought they ought to at once deal and in regard to which there seemed no reason for delay. The platters which he felt might require further inquiry were at the seine time urgent ones, and he hoped they were receiving attention. For instance, there was the question of a new National Gallery in Scotland. It was a question which could not be decided off-hand, but the right hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that the Scottish National Gallery was such that in no other Gallery in Europe was the light and space so poor. There were three points in the Report with which he thought the-Secretary for Scotland should deal at once. The first was the constitution of the Board of Manufactures itself. The Board consisted, and always had consisted, of the most intelligent and public-spirited men they could find in Scotland, but as a Board it had been throughout its career of a most inefficient character, and the country had had to pay very dearly in

  1569
  consequence. He was glad to notice that in the Estimates there was a sum of £2,000 for the purchase of pictures, £1,000 for last year and £1,000 for the current year; but he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was going to entrust this money to the uninformed Board of Manufactures. If he were, he had persuaded the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol refused to do, and he was practically going to throw the money away. The Board of Manufactures effected the purchase of their pictures in a way which would be a discredit to any private collector, in a way which was positively scandalous. The proposal was absurd, and he could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated such a thing. They ought to put their National Gallery at once upon a business footing, to put the curator upon a proper footing, and to make the body to which he was subject a reasonable instead of an unreasonable and incompetent body as at present. The Curators of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery were at present grossly underpaid. The Curator of the National Gallery received £250. No one would contend for a moment that he should receive less than £500. And the Curator of the Portrait Gallery received £150, rising to £200. A competent person could not possibly be found under £400 a year, except under the same happy circumstances as the case of the present holder, of the Curator having a private income.
  Then the third matter which he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with was the question of the sum of £2,000 per year which Scotland received under the Act of Union, and which represented the loss which Scotland suffered through the equalisation of the Customs and Excise duties at the time of the Union. The money was the private property of Scotland, and it should not be used, as it was at present used and had been used for a great many years, for paying liabilities which really ought to be borne by the British taxpayer. This state of things could not have arisen had it not been for two things. Unfortunately, the money was put on the Votes in 1854, and this was a step that ought to have
  1570
  been retraced at once. It ought to be placed upon the Consolidation Fund, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that this would be done. If it were not, he would hear a great deal more about this £2,000. The second reason was that the Board of Manufactures seemed to have been oblivious of the fact that this was Scotch money, and had gradually allowed it to be absorbed for the payment of things which in England and Ireland were paid for by the taxpayer. They could not regret too much that they had shown this extraordinary blindness to their duties as trustees, but the only remedy was to put the Board upon a proper footing and make sure that such glarin gfaults should not recur. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with these three matters at once, but he did not wish to be ungrateful and, therefore, he would call attention to what he had done for them. He had persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them £2,000 this year for the purchase of pictures, and he was glad to see that the bargain made two Years ago had been carried out, because this £2,000 was promised by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Bristol in 1901, and if it had not appeared on the Estimates they would have been subjected to robbery. He recognised also, and he gave the right hon. Gentleman great credit for it, that a sum of £200 had been put upon the Estimates to enable the National Portrait Gallery to make a modest acquirement in the way of pictures to that collection; and also a new sum of £150 which would enable that building to be cleaned. The effect was that these sums, amounting to £350 a year, now on the Estimates had to be used in correcting a state of affairs which had been a most disgraceful scandal in Scotland. They had also to thank his right hon. friend for a special grant of £800 for the Museum of Antiquities, and he recognised that he had done a service for Scotland for which every Scotchman ought to be exceedingly grateful. He asked the Secretary for Scotland if he was prepared to deal with the three subjects which he had specially brought to his attention.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)
  1571
  said he was given an opportunity of being completely frank with the House, because he was quite certain the Scottish Members felt this was in no sense a Party question, and he was perfectly certain his hon. friend, or any hon. Members who would speak after him, had no wish to criticise the Government, but were merely anxious to be taken into confidence, and to be told what steps had been taken to deal with the very serious and solid recommendations made by the Committee. His hon. friend had frankly said that there were very large questions raised in the Report upon which he could not give judgment. He (Mr. Murray) hoped he should show before he sat down that he should go further than he had been asked to go. He had been asked three particular questions. The first was as to the constitution of the Board of Manufactures. The Report finished with certain recommendations, among other things advising that the constitution of this Board should be altered. He was rather sorry his hon. friend had thought it necessary to make a harsh attack upon the Board of Manufactures, for, after all, they had done their best according to their lights, and especially as it was a complete change of his former attitude, for two years ago; when the Board was attacked, he pointed out that they bought a picture for £5,000, and sold it for £6,000, so that, judged by the vulgar standard of money, they had not made a very bad bargain. In the Report the Board was attacked, not for its purchases, but for not sufficiently strenuously knocking, so to speak, at the door of the Treasury. The Board was inclined to wash its hands of the whole concern, and, as a matter of fact, some of the members did actually send in their resignations; but upon representations being made to them, they patriotically said that although the Report did them scant justice they were perfectly willing to continue in office, in order not to put the Executive into difficulty, until the new arrangements were made. He thought they ought to be given credit for that.
  He considered the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met them very fairly in the matter. He had not only given £1,000
  1572
  a year for the purchase of pictures, but he was making up a year of arrears. He did not think the hon. Member need have any fear with regard to this money being given to the Board of Manufactures, for the present Board would have no anxiety to spend the money in haste according to their own ideas; and he was perfectly certain that, if they could not spend, at least they could save and leave it for their successors. The reason he was not attempting during this session to proceed with the reconstitution of the Board of Manufactures was a very simple one. To his mind the question was inextricably bound up with the question of what they were going to do with the National Galleries and other buildings; and he wished at once to indicate that, if certain arrangements were eventually made, and theme was no need for them to take any great time, he was almost persuaded that there would be no necessity for the Board at all. He did not see, if the recommendations of the Committee were carried out, why the National Gallery should not be carried on by a separate trustee as was done in other countries. After all, the reason of these people being there was an historic one. They were appointed for a perfectly different purpose. They were originally a Board of Manufactures; then they became a Fishery Board, and last of all they came to art. The reason he did not hastily reform this body was because he was not convinced that there was any necessity for it at all, and because lie did not think it worth while in t he period of transition to start a new scheme until he knew where he was in regard to the re-arrangements of the various institutions. As regarded the salaries of the curators, he was entirely with his hon. friend, but he did not feel it possible to deal with that subject this year, because the recommendation of the Committee was for increased salaries with, of course, increased duties, and it seemed to him that the question depended upon the eventual position the man was given, and that again depended upon the whole re-arrangement of the various institutions. His hon. friend must not think that because the salaries had not been increased this year, he did not entirely agree with the recommendation, but he thought it ought to be done as part of the rearrangement of the general situation.

  1573
  Then the third point was the question of the transfer of the £2,000 a year, Scotch money, from the Votes to the Consolidated Fund. This seemed to him really a question of arrangement, more or less, of accounts. He quite understood the recommendations of the Committee and saw that, if in future there were a continuance of this arrangement, the money might be lost sight of again in the future, as it undoubtedly had been in the past. But he did not look at it as a matter of immediate moment, although, as far as the principle was concerned, he agreed with his hon. friend. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer went into the arrangements that were to be made, it might be decided that it would be an advantage that they should have some of that £2,000 a year in the shape of an. accumulated capital sum.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL: Meanwhile it is being used for a wrong purpose.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYcould scarcely say that it was being used for the promotion of Scottish Art. It might be that there were charges which it at present met which ought to be met directly by the Imperial Exchequer, but that was a perfectly different thing. The Committee's Report said that, for instance, the maintenance of the various buildings ought to be drawn in the form of a Parliamentary grant. There he was with his hon. friend, and he did not think there would be any difficulty about it with the Treasury, but that was not exactly the same thing as saying that the £2,000 was being wrongly used.
  He would now tell the Committee about what, after all, he looked upon as a mere interim arrangement with the Treasury for this year. The old Estimate was £3,440, including, of course, the £2,000. This year they had had what he called temporary grants, £800 for the Museum of Antiquities, £1,000 on account of the arrears for the purchase of pictures—permanently, of course, they would have £1,000 intended to go on year after year, £200 for the Portrait Gallery, and an additional £150, making a total of £6,550 as against £3,400, which was the old charge. So far as the Committee's Report had shown in its recom-
  1574
  mendations, they might really say they had settled the whole matter, with the exception of the salaries and the upkeep of the National Gallery. The salaries of the National Gallery the Committee thought ought to be met entirely out of a Parliamentary grant, and the upkeep it had put at £700; and the contributions to the salaries of the National Portrait Gallery ought to be put at £250. Therefore all the salaries, subject of course to what he had said about the salary advances not having been made, they had practically raised with the Treasury on the lines of the Report. He could not say that he had got his right hon. friend's consent yet, because he had not formally asked for it, but he did not think the demand which had been put forward by the Committee on the question of these items coming on the Votes just as the National Galleries of England and Ireland were put on the Votes as one which ought to be resisted. He thought the Treasury had met them fairly and had done everything that could be done at once. They said that so far as there were other claims they must be part of their big scheme.
  Now he would come to what, after all, was at the botom of it all. What was going to be done as to the condition of affairs? The condition of affairs permitted of being very simply stated. There were three competitors for the space on The Mound at Edinburgh: the National Gallery, the Royal Academy, and the Royal Institution and kindred societies; there was only room for two. The Committee pointed out that at present there was not room in the one wing devoted to the National Gallery for a proper show of the pictures they had got, though the hon. Member had perhaps a little exaggerated the extreme difficulties one had to undergo to see the pictures. At any rate, however, there was neither room for the proper exhibition of the pictures nor was there room for expansion. Of course, the simplest plan would be to turn out the other wing and give that to the National Gallery; but then where was the Royal Institution to go? This was not the recommendation which the Committee favoured. They said that even if the National Gallery had the whole of the two wings, it would be no more than enough for their present needs, and would

  1575
  give absolutely no margin for expansion, because both buildings were absolutely incapable of extension. If they kept the National Gallery in the Royal Institution they had the advantage that they had a very fine building in a very fine position, but, on the other hand, there was absolutely no capacity for expansion, and they also turned out the Royal Institution, which, although it had no legal title to the rooms, had certainly a great claim to recognition, because it had been there all along, and it was represented by a great many influential people who would certainly very much object to having to go. The question naturally arose as to where they would put the National Gallery if they did not have it on The Mound. Now, in Edinburgh it was not an easy thing to get a site; but there was one which had been particularly pointed out and which had certainly created a great deal of discussion in art circles, and that was the Royal High School, situated on a plateau just beyond Edinburgh Gaol. It was a classical and beautiful building, which stood on a plateau where there was a good deal of room for expansion, and it was a building which, being of one storey after the Greek model, could remarkably easily be adapted to the purposes of a picture gallery. He believed there was also room there for an art school, and he did not think it would be at all a bad thing to have the art school in juxtaposition to the National Gallery; and therefore he could not disguise from himself that this was a very attractive site. He was in this backed up by a letter from the president of the Royal Scotish Academy.
  One more fact, and then the Committee would really be in possession of everything. He was met in the winter by a most influential deputation of really all the competent scientific authorities in Scotland, who urged strenuously and with great force that not only should the Royal Institution be allowed to remain where it was, but really that the building ought to be made the home of the learned societies. It was pointed out that it would be an immense advantage to them if they could have first of all a central hall where lectures and discussion could take place, and, secondly, that, if they could house the other bodies, they
  1576
  would have the combined libraries of the various scientific societies in one spot.
  With these facts before him, he would tell the Committee frankly what he did. It seemed to him that it was impossible to make a real choice between the various schemes without knowing something about the pounds, shillings, and pence, therefore the first thing he did was to ask the Board of Works for a report as to how much money it would take to turn the Royal Institution into a picture gallery, and, having done it, how much more space they would get. He thought this was a practical inquiry to make. The outcome of that was this: The National Gallery at present had 8,600 square feet of hanging space and the Royal Scottish Academy had 8,700 square feet. Now, if the Royal Institution were transmogrified, it would provide 20,326 square feet, but this would not be first - class space, because, owing to the construction of the building, the lower side rooms would only have side lights. The cost would be comparatively small, and would amount to something like £3,000 or £4,000. They would, of course, have to find quarters for the Royal Institution somewhere else in a fairly central position. So far as he could he was making inquiries to find out what would be the cost of putting down a new Royal Institution in a central position in Edinburgh, and he was endeavouring to ascertain the whole total cost of the transmigration. Then he would be face to face with the difficulty that they would not have much more space than the Royal Academy and the National Gallery had between them at the present time. The effective space of the northern building was no more than the effective space of the other building, and there would be no room for extension. He had further instituted an inquiry to see if the authorities of the High School would, in any sense, be willing to treat. There was a controversy going on between the town council and the school board upon this matter. If, as a matter of national policy, the Royal Academy should go to the High School it would have to be done by a Bill. He was not so much inquiring with a view to see whether he was likely to meet with a willing seller as to be able to make a sort of pecuniary comparison between the two alternative

  1577
  schemes he had suggested. That was how the matter stood, and he thought it best to be perfectly frank with the Committee. He had not got a separate policy of his own, and he wished to make this statement because he wished to elicit Scotch opinion upon the subject. It was purely a question of £ s. d., and one scheme might turn out to be ruinously expensive as contrasted with the other, and this was a very good argument with the Treasury. He should not be at all surprised if some people were to be found of the opinion that the High School site was too far from the Academy. Some people would say that the High School had possibilities of expansion which the other site had not. He might say that personally he was rather enamoured of the High School proposal, but that was a point upon which he thought public opinion should have an opportunity of expressing itself. Looking to the recommendations of the Committee, and the fact that they had a certain amount of money in hand, and remembering that they had also got the possibility, at any moment, of getting capital in return for their annuity, he thought the pecuniary difficulties ought to be surmounted. It was certain that the present state of affairs ought not to be allowed to go on, and although there were obviously great difficulties in finally settling which course should be decided upon, he had indicated very plainly what the two alternatives were, and he hoped the Committee would agree that he had not been allowing the grass to grow under his feet, nor was he in any way anxious to adopt a policy representing his own personal view. He was anxious, as far as possible, to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANKpointed out that in the letter which had been quoted it was stated that under this arrangement Ireland received £34,000, whereas Scotland was only to receive £6,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would state what course of action he was likely to take?
  MR. UREsaid he had listened with great satisfaction to the statement of the Secretary for Scotland. What was proposed was nothing short
  1578
  of a revolutionary change in the management of the art galleries and art business in Scotland. It appeared to him that all the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, of which the hon. Baronet was a member, were very closely inter-related to one another and he observed that each recommendation concluded by stating that the Committee saw no reason why the change recommended should not at once be set about and that it brooked no delay. He thought the Secretary of Scotland had really gone as far as any practical administrator could go at the present stage in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. He would briefly invite the attention of the Committee to the various recommendations in order that hon. Members might see clearly how far the Government were ready to go. The first and most vital recommendation was the reconstitution of the Board of Manufactures. That Board was really entrusted with the duty of encouraging art and supervising and managing all the institutions connected with art. He did not know whether the Secretary for Scotland intended to brush aside that recommendation or whether he proposed to set up a substitute for the Board of Manufactures equivalent to the body which managed the National Galleries in London and Dublin. It was quite obvious that some similar body would be required to be substituted. Why not accept the recommendations of the Departmental Committee and constitute another body at once so that the investigations which the right hon. Gentleman had been so assiduously and very properly making during the past few months might be handed over to this new body to which the hon. Baronet opposite would be prepared to entrust full powers of management. He understood that the Departmental Committee proposed that the new body should consist of fifteen members. The old body was too large, and there was no close and definite sense of responsibility, and no method or organisation about it, and those were the main complaints which had been made against it. It was proposed that of the fifteen members of the new body three should be members of the Royal Scottish Academy, two should be named by the Scottish Academy, one

  1579
  by the University, another by the County Council, one by the Royal Society, and another by the Society of Antiquaries. That seemed a suitable body to undertake the inquiry. It was necessary to appoint at once a curator with a proper salary and allowance for travelling expenses. It was indispensable that this new official should have the initiative, and what was perhaps more important, that his decisions and advice should not be overruled by the board which it was proposed to set up. If they did differ from the decisions of this official they should record their reasons in writing. The Secretary for Scotland said he found great difficulty in setting up this new official until he had made up his mind whether there was to be a board of control. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to constitute a new board? He thought that that step was absolutely essential.
  The next most important recommendation of the Departmental Committee was the severance of the school of art altogether from the Board of Manufactures. It was proposed to set up an entirely independent board to supervise the school of art, and he was proud to think that the model of the new system was to be found in Glasgow. Another important recommendation was that adequate funds should be given to the National Gallery. He rejoiced to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he accepted without qualification the recommendation of the Committee that the new gallery should be placed on exactly the same footing as the National Galleries in England and Ireland, and that they should have in Scotland a National Gallery as fully equipped and as well-supported by the State. They approached the subject of he National Portrait Gallery with a real sense of shame, because it had been treated in a most penurious and niggardly fashion by successive Governments. It had often been said that the lack of private munificence had contributed to the poverty of the national collections in Scotland. For that there was no foundation; but he thought the pernicious treatment of successive Governments tended to dry up the springs of private munificence. The National Portrait Gallery practically owed its origin to the princely munificence of patriotic citizens. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that
  1580
  this difficulty was remedied. It was sad to read that in the National Portrait Gallery the staff was inadequate, the pictures could not be kept in good order, the ventilation was bad, and the ordinary repairs could not be properly carried out; and also that it was impossible to keep the building reasonably clean. He was glad to hear that it was not going to remain in that state any longer. He understood that the different sums voted for art purposes amounted to £3,150. He had been looking at the total net cost which the Committee estimated would be incurred if all their recommendations were carried out, and he learned that £4,200 would, in their judgment, suffice to carry out their recommendations. It was proposed that £2,900 should be given to the National Gallery, £600 to the National Portrait Gallery, because an increased salary to the curator was needed, £200 for additional pictures, and £400 to the Society of Antiquaries. The right hon. Gentleman had probably gone as far as it was possible for him to go in carrying out those recommendations. He hoped that in the meantime he would be generous in regard to salaries, and maintenance, and the upkeep of the buildings.
  He agreed that the difficulty of choosing a new site was extreme, and nobody who knew Edinburgh would doubt that for a moment. He did not think that a third site was available and he wished the right hon. Gentleman well in his negotiations for the acquisition of the Royal High School. He was not quite certain whether he was going to place the National Gallery in the Royal High School. The Committee had pointed out that the present premises were quite inadequate in size for a permanent collection which they all anticipated would grow in extent every year. He understood that the recommendation was to leave the Royal Scottish Academy in possession of the buildings on The Mound, if suitable accommodation could be found for the pictures elsewhere. The Scottish Academy had gone as far as they could expect it to go in generously offering their pictures, which were valued at £38,000, as a gift to the nation in consideration of their remaining in the exclusive occupation of The Mound premises. That was an exceedingly good arrangement which, he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was willing to endorse. This

  1581
  discussion had been useful, if only for the fact that it had elicited from the Secretary for Scotland the very valuable and extremely satisfactory explanation he had given to the Committee.
  *MR. WYLIEsaid he was very pleased to hear the statement of the Secretary for Scotland that he had practically secured, as far as the annual grant was concerned, all that the Committee had recommended, and very little remained to be added to make it complete. He was sure they would all be ready to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the success of his efforts with the Treasury. He desired to impress upon the Secretary for Scotland the necessity of providing liberal grants in connection with the new building for the National Gallery. Two Years ago it was pointed out that while the London art galleries were receiving £80,000 a Year, and the Dublin art galleries £8,760 a year, the Scottish galleries were receiving practically nothing. There had also been a large grant to Ireland for pictures when Scotland had received practically nothing in that respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago intervened in the debate and rated the Scottish nation roundly for their parsimony in connection with art, pointing out that, in accordance with an agreement with the Treasury in 1886, contributions were given in proportion to the amount of the private donations to the picture galleries of the different countries. The right hon. Gentleman stated then that while Ireland had got pictures by private munificence to the extent of £60,000, Scotland had really done nothing, though a very much wealthier and stronger nation. He was glad that the Report of the Committee had corroborated what the Scottish Members said at the time to the effect that the liberality of Scotland, both municipal and private, had been very much in excess of that of any other part of the Kingdom. His hon. and learned friend opposite had referred to the splendid donation given by Mr. Finlay, of Aberdour, to the value of £60,000. The municipality of Edinburgh had not been behind in that respect, because it gave for £1,000 a site for the galleries which was worth £30,000. That was prac-
  1582
  tically a gift of £29,000. He was informed that the city of Glasgow, through private and municipal sources, had in the last twenty or thirty years given no less than £750,000 for art purposes. That was probably the most munificent subscription to art in the United Kingdom or in Europe. He could state on the authority of Sir Francis Powell, the celebrated artist, that the Glasgow art galleries were the finest in the country, and perhaps in Europe. Reference had been made by his hon. and learned friend to the Glasgow School of Art. He would say that the Edinburgh school could take no better model than that of Glasgow, either in connection with buildings or the manner in which classes were conducted. He wished to impress on the Treasury the necessity of contributing liberally to the very large fund which would undoubtedly be required for the purpose of putting on a proper footing the new building for the National Art Gallery. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would be as successful with the Exchequer in his efforts to obtain a large capital sum as he had been in securing an annual grant for the purposes of art in Scotland.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the Secretary for Scotland had stated that he was glad this opportunity had occurred for eliciting Scottish opinion, but surely an earlier time than the end of the session would have given hon. Members a better opportunity for that purpose, for the attendance of Scottish Members today was very small. He was sure every Scottish Member would have been present if the debate had taken place a month ago. He desired to acknowledge the interest which the Secretary for Scotland had shown in the question, and the careful analysis he had given the Committee of the various elements and of the different proposals. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would continue to show this interest by pressing for more money. He was rather struck by the Report of the Committee in that respect. The Committee recommended an additional grant of £4,200. It was a remarkable Committee. It consisted of the hon. Baronet the Member for the College Division of Glasgow, the hon. Member for East Perthshire, and

  1583
  two other Members who were there to see that Scotland did not get too much. One of these Members was the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He was a Scotchman and he was also a member of the Cabinet, whose desires he might be taken as representing in matters of economy. The fact of his signing the Report and giving his countenance to the recommendation for an increased grant was of peculiar interest. The Director of the National Gallery of Ireland was also a member of the Committee. They knew that there was always competition between what was called the sister countries, and the case was very much strengthened by the fact that the representative of the only competitor in this matter with Scotland had assented to the demands made upon the Government. He was quite sure that these demands were reasonable, and he thought his hon. friend the Member for the College Division was justified in saying that every possible precaution should be taken to prevent the sum of £2,000 which was exclusively Scottish property from being either used to meet any charge which ought properly to fall on the National Treasury, or from being dealt with in a way which might make it possible that its character as Scottish property should be taken away.
  The Secretary for Scotland promised to give them legislation at an early date. He quite saw that the right hon. Gentleman must have the assent of the Treasury, because a grant of money was a vital element in any proposal he might make. He hoped they might take it that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the grass to grow under his feet, that he would obtain this grant as soon as possible, and that he would be able to bring in a Bill next session which would deal with the proposals of the Committee and reconstitute this so called Board of Manufactures upon a new and better footing. Its present composition was rather absurd, and a very much better one might be found. Here he must make a remark in the interest of those parts of the country not immediately around Edinburgh Castle. The people of Edinburgh were apt to mistake them selves for the people of Scotland. There were people who considered themselves entitled to be represented in such matters
  1584
  as well as the people of Edinburgh. If the recommendations of the Committee were given effect to, it would be possible for the Secretary for Scotland out of the nominees assigned to him to make provision for counties and towns besides the capital. He noticed that the Departmental Committee suggested that a member should be appointed by Edinburgh Town Council, another by Edinburgh University, and that others should be represented by societies. The societies did, to a certain extent, represent Scotland outside of Edinburgh, but the University and town council members would represent the city of Edinburgh only. Therefore, he would say to the Secretary for Scotland, that if he was going to constitute the Board on a really proper national basis, he must have regard to the people outside of Edinburgh. By not making it too much of an Edinburgh board and by putting it on a wider basis, it would carry the confidence of the rest of Scotland.
  On the question of site, he said that experience had shown, especially in the case of the learned societies of London, the immense benefit of endeavouring to consolidate the different societies in one local building. It would be a very great advantage if the Secretary for Scotland would endeavour to secure that the different learned and scientific societies of Edinburgh should be housed in, or near, the same spot. Any site chosen for art galleries should be one which would admit of the expansion of the galleries. It would be the greatest possible mistake to put the building in a place where that could not be done. The right hon. Gentleman carried the Committee with him when he indicated a site on Calton Hill. He was not certain but that the Secretary for Scotland might find it wise on the site question to have a Committee which would aid him, and which would take a little more evidence and report on the subject. No one could fail to feel the great importance of the question. Scotland had produced an unusually large number of eminent artists in proportion to the population, and it had shown a faculty for giving and maintaining a national quality in art production, and giving diversity and individuality to the subjects treated. If anything could be done to give it the means of

  1585
  maintaining that individuality which it had shown in the past, and which was more threatened under modern conditions than it was a hundred years ago, it would be a benefit not only to Scotland, but to the artists of the United Kingdom. Art should not run in one channel, but into a variety of types, and so enable the country the better to hold its place in competition with the other nations of the world.
  There was one other point. It was a matter of the greatest importance to maintain the Museum of Antiquities and the National Portrait Gallery with a view to enable students and visitors from other countries to study the history of Scotland. There were very few countries whose history had so great an interest to travellers from Europe and America—partly through the dramatic events in the annals of the nation, and partly through the writings of Sir Walter Scott. And, therefore, anything which was done for the preservation of the antiquities of Scot-Lind, and for the display of its collection of art, was of exceptional value and of great interest not only to the inhabitants these islands, but to students from elsewhere. These considerations might seem remote from the matters they were discussing, but, when properly looked at, they were cognate to the main question they desired to bring before the Committee—viz., that they should deal liberally with these local collections and put their administration on a proper footing.
  MR. WALLACEsaid he agreed with other Members for Scotland that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland was a most satisfactory one. Indeed, there was a proposal of the right hon. Gentleman which he preferred to that of his hon. friend the hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the danger which existed that, as long as this £2,000 a year, which was Scottish property in connection with the Act of Union, was put on the Estimates year by year, it must be taken out of the Estimates; and the hon. Baronet suggested that it should be taken out of the Estimates and placed on the Consolidated Fund. He liked better the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, who realised that a
  1586
  time might come when a Saxon Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was ignorant of the history of the matter, might suppose that this was a grant made year by year from the Exchequer to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this fund of £2,000 should be commuted at once, and the amount safely carried across the border. He agreed with that, especially as there was an opportunity now of utilising the money in connection with the new National Gallery for Scotland. He was not going to discuss the question of the composition of the new board that was to take the place of the existing one, because until they knew what were to be the duties of the new board it would be ridiculous to discuss its composition in the future. As to the question of sites, everybody who knew Edinburgh acknowledged that there were only two practical sites—the Mound, or the present position of The Royal High School. He had a suggestion, although lie knew it was useless to make it: viz., that the existing miserable buildings on Castle Hill should be pulled down and the site utilised for the new National Gallery. They would get rid, not of historical buildings, but of modern structures which were a disgrace to the site and the city.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Does the hon. Member mean the buildings on Castle Hill?
  MR. WALLACE: No; the modern barrack buildings on the Castle Rock. He did not propose to pull down anything that was historical. Nobody would suggest vandalism of that sort; but the barracks which in all their deformity and nakedness affronted the eye of every stranger who visited Edinburgh for the first time, and were a disgrace to the architectural art of Scotland. As to the two sites referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he quite agreed that it was difficult to form any estimate of the expenditure that would be required. If other sites and other buildings were to be found for the other institutions the £4,000 suggested would fall into utter insignificance. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that no better site could be found, if it could be obtained, than that of the Royal High School, standing

  1587
  as it did where one could see it almost from the end of Princes Street.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the Calton Gaol intercepted that view. And what about the gas-works?
  MR. WALLACEsaid he understood the gas-works were to come down. One of the most essential necessities for improving that part of Edinburgh was the removal of the gas-works. They had no estimate of the cost of the Royal High School site, and were working in the dark, so far as money was concerned. Apart from the question of the money which could be extracted from an unwilling Treasury in England, he thought that either of the sites referred to by the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory. He congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on his statement.
  MR. BOLANDsaid he desired to say that he was perfectly satisfied that all his colleagues for Ireland were quite ready to back up their Scotch friends in their ardent desire to have museums and art galleries put on a proper basis, because they felt that their own development of Irish art should be out on the same sound basis. Sir James Guthrie, referring to the Royal Hibernian Academy and the Irish National Gallery, said in the Report already referred to—
  "My Council are given to understand that the cost of corresponding buildings in Dublin and London were, for the most part, met out of Treasury grants."
  Now, as a matter of fact, the only extent to which the Royal Hibernian Academy had benefited from the Treasury was £300. It had never benefited to the extent of a single penny in the way of a building grant. The Royal Hibernian Academy was built out of purely private funds. It was right that the Scotch claims should be properly put forward on their own merits, but they should not make capital out of totally erroneous views as to what had been done for Irish institutions. Sir Thomas Drew, president of the Royal Hibernian Academy, referring to the endowments of Scottish art, said—
  "As against this, per contra, the Academy of Ireland has never had buildings or endowments of any sort from the State, but an annual vote of £300, and the chief consideration for
  1588
  that was the maintenance of a free life school for the few artists, male and female, studying in Ireland. Towards its main obligation of bringing contemporary art to the Irish people, its balance from State aid, when last computed, was £116."
  He would not go further into the figures, but undoubtedly the Irish people had contributed a great deal towards the support of art in Ireland; and they were thoroughly with the Scotch people in their endeavours to put Scotch art on a proper basis. He hoped that next year the Scotch Members would support the Irish Members in their desire to have a thorough inquiry into the working of the national institutions in Dublin.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he felt that the subject brought up that day would go on for years. It was not likely to be determined next year, or the year after, or the year after that. He quite agreed that the £2,000 referred to should be kept entirely distinct from Imperial money. There were two sums of £30,000 and £40,000 which came under the Treaty of Union. The first referred to the equivalent for the English National Debt and the second referred to the Scottish Universities. It had always been cast up cwt Scottish Members that that was imperial money given to Scotland, whereas it was only one portion of purely Scottish money—reserved to Scotland under the Treaty of Union. The money should be utilised every year for the purpose for which it was granted. He did not understand why ono generation should possess itself of the money. If that were allowed, the tendency of every generation would be to appropriate the money for its own purposes. With regard to the site for the National Gallery, he quite appreciated what had been said about the Royal High School at Edinburgh as a suitable site; but why should Edinburgh necessarily be chosen. In the past Edinburgh was the capital of Scotland; but why should they look at the site of the National Gallery from the point of view of sentiment. The gallery would be ten times more useful in Glasgow, where an enormous population had grown up in modern times. Edinburgh could keep its present buildings; but if a National Gallery was about to be established, Glasgow, with its population of over 1,000,000, would be more convenient. As regarded

  1589
  local aid, it would be forthcoming more readily if the gallery were situated in Glasgow rather than in Edinburgh. He quite appreciated the labours of the Committee; but the Report of a Departmental Committee took many years to carry out. Scotsmen would wish to see the more immediate matters put on the Imperial Estimates; but any further changes might well be left to the future.
  MR. WEIRsaid he hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would arrange for the proper expenditure of this money; and that it would be expended for exclusively Scottish purposes. He wished to draw attention to the fees which were charged. In no other art gallery in the world were such high fees charged. The charges were mean and contemptible, and should be got rid of. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would be able to obtain the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dispense with these charges. The picture galleries on the Continent, including the galleries at Florence and Pisa, were free from anything of the kind. £34,000 per annum was given to the Art Gallery in Ireland; whereas only £6,000 was given to Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland should discuss that matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; because Scotland was surely entitled to as much as Ireland. It was very desirable to encourage art in Scotland; and he hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would succeed in obtaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sufficient sum for that purpose.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid he wished to thank his right hon. friend for his statement. It was a most satisfactory statement, and showed that the matters at issue were perfectly safe in his right lion. friend's hands. He hoped that in anything he had said he did not display any distrust in his right hon. friend. His right hon. friend chaffed him for having defended art purchases a few years ago; but he did not defend the Board of Manufactures from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Inquiries since then had convinced him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on that occasion perfectly right in every charge he brought against the Board of Manufactures.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he did not quarrel with the tone of the debate. He assured his hon. friend he was not at all apprehensive of want of confidence on his part. All he was doing was trying to defend a body of gentlemen whom he was sure had done their best in the circumstances in which they were placed. He could not pass without protest the attack of the hon. Member for Mid. Lanarkshire on the existence of the National Gallery in Edinburgh. Where did he want it—was it at Motherwell? Did he want the £2,000 divided among the parishes in Scotland according to their valuation and population. After all, he hon. Member must really give some place to Edinburgh, as the capital, and he would be a very poor Scot if he gave the hon. Gentleman the slightest hope of allowing the National Gallery of Scotland to be anywhere but in the capital. As to the reconstitution of the Board, he could do nothing without legislation. His point was that he hoped an arrangement would be made with the Treasury for the upkeep of these institutions. He could not abolish the Board as it was, because it was the only means at present by which the statutory funds could be distributed. The hon. Member for Perth had said the real figures were not given. He quite agreed. He did not think one could be in a position to give figures barring this, that if one knew what the work of the future was to be one could arrive at what would be the necessary solution. He pointed out that on the other alternative scheme they would have to find a new site for the societies which inhabited the Royal Institution, and that would be a very expensive process. Of course, as they were not quite so large, it would not be so expensive as housing the National Gallery elsewhere. He was bound to say, knowing Edinburgh as he did, he should despair of ever being able to solve this question by voluntary bargain at all. Therefore, what he wanted was the support of the House in one or other of the policies he had indicated, so that they might go forward with what might be the policy of the House.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  £9,598 to complete the sum for the Local Government Board for Scotland.
  MR. WEIRsaid this was not the first nor the second time he had had to draw the attention of the Committee to the necessity of the Local Government Board for Scotland taking more steps with regard to the number of uncertified deaths in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. This was not a matter of legislation, but of administration. These deaths were due to the insufficiency of medical men, and the Local Government Board should take steps to provide more medical men. He remembered once being in the Island; of Lewis with a medical friend, when the minister was suddenly attacked by illness, and had it not fortunately happened that he was seen by his (Mr. Weir's) friend the minister would probably have died. This gentleman lived forty-five miles away from the nearest medical man, and had the gentleman been sent for in all probability it would have been found that he had been called to a patient miles away. It was a scandal to Scotland that such a thing should be allowed. He was sorry also to have to draw attention to the insanitary condition of the houses in the Island of Lewis; but having regard to the action of the the Government in dropping the Bill they proposed to bring in he had no alternative but to call attention to these matters. Four thousand houses at least in Lewis were in a most insanitary condition, the people inhabiting them only being separated from the domestic cattle by a handrail. Their condition was simply alarming. It was a state of things that ought not to be allowed in any part of the British Islands. He had been in many lands, and seen many peoples, but he had never seen anything so bad as the conditions which existed in the Island of Lewis. It was a scandal that should not be allowed to continue. The Local Government Board should appoint a sufficient number of inspectors who should be sent out to report what alterations should be made and should not be allowed to waste their time in Edinburgh. This condition of things existed on the western mainland. What was the result? Epidemics constantly raged,
  1592
  and there were no isolation hospitals for the patients, who had to be treated in their own homes. The result was that 135 schools were closed from two to four weeks twice or three times a year. That was a most serious thing from the point of view of the education of the children. No wonder the people were never able to get on. The schools themselves were not in a satisfactory condition; the water supply was bad; and the ventilation was bad, and when he asked the local sanitary inspectors and the local medical officers for health why they did not report these things they replied that they were tired of sending reports to headquarters because the Local Government Board took no notice. Why was not this state of affairs remedied? It would not be allowed for a moment if these places were close to our great cities instead of being remote.
  Another matter in regard to which the Local Government. Board had been guilty of serious neglect concerned the condition of the churchyards in many parts of the Highlands. For years the sanitary inspectors had been calling attention to the facts, but nothing had been done. In many cases the churchyards were so crowded that the bodies were almost out of the ground. The Local Government Board ought to insist upon more land being secured, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to see that the officials at Edinburgh performed their duties in a more satisfactory manner. During the past year no fewer than nineteen medical officers had been appointed, not one of whom possessed a public health diploma. That was in direct contravention of the statute. What was the good of passing Acts of Parliament if the Secretary for Scotland paid no attention whatever to them? Then there was the question of tuberculosis. That was a terribly infectious disease, the spread of which the Local Government Board ought to do its utmost to prevent. In many new establishments special wards were being set apart, and he suggested that if alterations were not being made in existing institutions they ought to be. The least that should be done was to provide a kind of out-house in which such cases might be isolated. He also asked what the Board were doing in the way of securing the medical examination to

  1593
  children, with a view to providing, where necessary, better treatment and nourishment, as recommended by the Physical Training Committee. Thousands of men were rejected annually for service in the Army and Navy because of their physical condition not being up to standard. Ho hoped the Board would do their utmost to bring this matter prominently forward.
  The recent Return with regard to local medical officers was of the most inaccurate description. The Board ought really to see that the information they furnished to the House was correct, instead of doing their work in so slip-shod a manner. Another matter to which he had had to refer on previous occasions was the use of humanised lymph. It was condemned in every other civilised country, and yet it was allowed in Scotland. Vaccination was compulsory; there were no exemption certificates in Scotland; therefore, it was the duty of the Government to see that the lymph supplied was of the very best quality. The lymph was supplied in Scotland by an official of the Local Government Board on his own account, and none of the vaccine stations were subject to proper supervision. Any vile stuff might be sent to them. How were they to know that it was all right? There was no standard of quality for the lymph. If the Government insisted on compulsory vaccination they ought to see that there was a sufficient supply of the purest and best quality that could be obtained. He was not surprised that the people of Leicester should stand out against the abominable practice of vaccination. If they could be assured that the lymph was pure and up to a proper standard many people who claimed exemption now would not do so. He admired those who resisted rather than submit to brutal and arbitrary laws. He asked the Secretary for Scotland to give attention to the vaccination question and to see that the Local Government Board made arrangements for a satisfactory supply of lymph. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some assurance that he would waken up the Local Government Board from their slumbers, because the matters to which he had referred, and others with which he would not deal at present, ought to be better attended to than they had been in the past.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,)said he was a member of the Local Government Board for some time, but he was afraid that would not recommend it much to the hon. Member for Ross-shire. His experience as a member of the Board had enabled him to appreciate the points which the hon. Member had raised, and the difficulties which the Board, both as a board and as individual members, had in meeting those cases. He could assure the hon. Member that they quite recognised, and especially in the northern districts, that there were many geographical and local circumstances which made the condition of the population by no means easy. So far as matters of public health were concerned the condition were sometimes of such a character as to give a great deal of anxiety to those charged with the care of the interests of the people. If the hon. Member would pardon him for saving so, the Highland districts of Scotland, at any rate, were well represented on the Local Government Board. The Secretary for Scotland was a member of the Board, and he and the other members were well acquainted with the conditions in the various districts of Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: They never go there.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid the hon. Member was hardly fair to the members of the Board. He knew that it was their fortune to visit different parts of the Highlands every year, and he could assure the hon. Member that the condition of the Highlands with regard to the various matters referred to were not sonly constantly brought before the Local Government Board, but that they engaged their most careful consideration. They were as anxious as any public body could be to ameliorate the condition of the population in the various districts. With regard to uncertified deaths in Highland parishes, he agreed that the number was unfortunately too large. But, on the other hand, he was afraid it was a matter in respect of which no power possessed, at any rate, by the Local Government Board could give any effectual remedy, for unless the patient had been seen by a medical man it was not easy to get a satisfactory certificate. He

  1595
  was sure the hon. Member recognised that the long distances in sparsely populated districts and the fact that in such districts as were to be found in many of the Highland counties they could not get a sufficient supply of medical men, made it difficult, and indeed impossible, completely to remedy the evil which had been referred to. He could assure the hon. Member that nothing had been wanting on the part of the Local Government Board to see that a better state of matters was brought about in that respect. The insanitary state of the houses in many parts of the country was also a matter which all must regret, but here again, he was afraid that the Local Government Board had not power to enable them to satisfactorily deal with it. To a large extent it must remain a matter for the management and the administration of the local authorities in Scotland. He did not desire to blame them at all in that respect, for one recognised the difficulties of the situation. One result of taking action in this matter might be to deprive some of the country population of even the inadequate housing they at present had, because the cost was such that he doubted whether it could be obtained to an extent which would be sufficient to secure an adequate improvement with regard to the houses. He was in hopes that his right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland might be able to follow the example of his predecessor, as the hon. Member desired, and that they would get the benefit of his further experience.
  In regard to the position of the schools, that was a matter which had been engaging the attention of the Local Government Board and of the Scotch Education Department, and he was very hopeful that if they were fortunate in respect to educational legislation next session, that it would be put on a better footing. The condition of the churchyards was entirely a matter for the various local authorities. They had power to look after their condition, if there was such room for complaint as the hon. Member had suggested. He could assure the hon. Member that it was not at all an easy matter for the central authority to insist on the strictest regard for the law in these remote, sparsely populated districts, because that would involve expense beyond what these poor
  1596
  districts were able to bear. They could not have local administration carried out as satisfactorily in these sparsely populated and poor districts as in wealthier districts where the resources of civilisation were much more easily available and where a remedy was less expensive to get. As to the supply of medical officers of health, that was a matter for which the Local Government Board had over and over again endeavoured to find a remedy. But everyone who was acquainted with the difficulty of the question would realise that they could not get the best men to go to an out-lying district as officers of health where there was little or no private practice to give them anything like a remuneration for their ability or energy and induce them to settle down in that part of the country. During the last seven or eight years, he knew, the Local Government Board had had to meet that difficulty and they were endeavouring to meet it.
  The last point referred to by the hon. Member was as to the supply of lymph. He thought that the conditions under which that supply could be procured were thoroughly well known to the hon. Member. He thought that the arrangements which had been made were really the best possible. The supply of lymph wanted in Scotland was not at all sufficient to demand the setting up of an independent establishment; and arrangements had been made with the English Local Government Board to get an adequate supply so as to avoid the use of humanised lymph. The hon. Member said that the use of humanised lymph was forbidden in England. He did not know whether that was so or not; but so far as the practice in Scotland was concerned, the use of humanised lymph was very small compared with that of glycerinated lymph. The administration of the vaccination laws in Scotland was even less grievous than in England. Although the law in Scotland was very strict, the Local Government Board recognised that it did not pay to make too many martyrs in that regard. Fortunately, the Scottish population were fully aware of the advantages of vaccination and re-vaccination and they did not have so many of that class of people who objected to vaccination as, say, in Leicester. So far as the

  1597
  administration of the Vaccination Laws in Scotland was concerned there was no substantial grievance in Scotland. The Local Government Board were anxious, by care and attention, to remedy the evils to which attention had been drawn by the hon. Member, and many of which he agreed existed, and to secure that the various local authorities should, so far as their means would allow, conform to the law. At the same time they recognised that the difficulties of the situation were such that it would lead to greater evil if the strict letter of the law were enforced. They must wait for the legislation which the hon. Member desired; and he could not doubt that, by the assistance of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in an early session, they would be able to remove some of the difficulties in the way of the Local Government Board.
  MR. WEIRsaid he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would give all the assistance in his power to get such legislation passed.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he could only suggest that in the meantime the Local Government Board had to do their duty and that the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark should likewise do his.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he wished to compliment the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty on the manner in which he had by speech and Question and Answer attempted to keep the Local Government Board up to their duty; and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would see in the future some further fruits of his efforts. He trusted that English Members would follow the example of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty in that regard; for, after all, public Departments were the better for criticism like that directed against them by his hon. friend below the Gangway. By so acting they would be doing good service to their constitutencies and the whole country. The hon. Member had called attention to the number of medically uncertified deaths in Scotland. In Scotland there was some excuse why a number of deaths were not certified by a medical man on account of the grea distances;
  1598
  but an alteration of the law might bring about a remedy of the evil of which the hon. Gentleman complained. It was not for the public well-being that any citizen should die without some proper investigation being made as the cause of death. Without that the perpetrators of crime escaped, who, under a more efficient system, would be discovered and brought to justice. It also involved a large amount of carelessness on the part of those connected with the persons who were suffering from disease. If, as the hon. Member suggested, pressure could be brought to bear on the Local Government Board, some alteration in the law might be secured. At the present moment it was a scandal in England, as well as in Scotland, that a large number of people were buried, the cause of whose death had not been properly certified. The law in this country should be made like that in any other civilised country where no person could die without proper investigation into the cause of his or her death by some one representing the Government. That was a question which he had repeatedly brought before the House, and there was little excuse for the Government not introducing legislation long before now. The Report of the Committee which investigated the, subject and whch suggested a remedy had been before the Government for the last eight or nine years, and a draft Bill had even been prepared, but up to the present time no legislation had been introduced.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is asking for legislation on this subject. That cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he was only calling the attention of the Local Government Board of Scotland to this matter, and suggesting that some remedy might be found for the present unsatisfactory condition of things. He thanked his hon. friend below the Gangway for having raised this question. He thought the excuse which the Lord Advocate had given was a fair one in regard to distance. His hon. friend also referred to the question of the use of humanised lymph, and he was glad that the Lord Advocate had given a sympathetic answer. He

  1599
  hoped that the necessity for the use of humanised lymph would disappear altogether. It was within the duty of the Government to supply glycerinated lymph for the purpose of vaccination. He was glad that in Scotland they did not make martyrs in connection with vaccination. They had too much good sense. The people of England were often driven into opposition against vaccination because they were occasionally made martyrs in the cause. The administration of the Act would be efficient, and more satisfactory to the public if a proper supply of gly erinated calf lymph was at the service of all practitioners.
  With reference to medical officers of health, there was a difficulty in many districts on account of the small areas, and the consequent small salaries. The remedy for that was co-operation between adjoining districts, which would enable salaries to be increased without any excessive burden on the rates. If the Local Government Board of Scotland would induce local authorities to co-operate in this manner, there would be generally a more efficient administration of the law. He hoped the same practice would be followed as was followed in England; and that every county area would have an officer of health. The question of expense should not be considered; because the saving of the lives of a few bread-winners would be equivalent to the salary of an officer of health for a year. It was the worst economy to attempt to save where health was concerned. It was stated that it was very difficult for a central authority to look after the sanitation of individual houses; but the duty of the central authority should be to keep the local authorities up to their duty in that respect. He thought that more might be done in that direction. At present the power of the local authorities or the central authority was not sufficient to enable them to house the people as civilised beings and members of a great Imperial race should be housed. The conditions of life in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, and also in England, were not creditable; and it was only by steady and continuous pressure on the part of the central authority that the local authorities could be kept up to their duties in that respect. The local authorities were always thinking
  1600
  of expense; but expense did not enter into the question of keeping people in good health and enabling them to bring up their children properly. Money spent in that direction added more to the strength of the Empire than all the talk about Imperialism which had been heard in and out of that House. Nothing could more conduce to making the people of this country an Imperial race than by providing them with houses where morality and decency could be preserved. At present thousands of people lived in houses where morality was a miracle, and where decency was impossible. The Local Government Board for Scotland would be well advised to turn their attention to this matter; and he would urge on the Lord Advocate to use all the influence and the administrative powers he possessed in that direction.
  Vote agreed to.

REVENUE DEPA RTMENTS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,615,509, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he desired to say a word or two about, the Report of the Post Office Wages Committee recently presented by the Departmental Committee appointed by the noble Lord's predecessor. The Postmaster-General was good enough to say that they should have an opportunity of discussing and hearing his views. It was not his fault that they had a comparatively short time that afternoon. More than a year had elapsed since the appointment of the Committee whose Report was spoken of by the then Postmaster-General as one which ought to be speedily made, and during a somewhat long period they had not had an opportunity of seeing its contents. At any rate, what they were entitled to hope now was that that afternoon the Postmaster-General would say distinctly whether he accepted the recommendations of that Report, and

1601
when he would be prepared to carry them out. Speaking generally, he ventured to say that after years of discussion the Report seemed to him to afford a solution of many controversial questions, and that, though it did not by any means completely answer the expectations, on points of detail, of those who, at any rate, gave evidence before the Committee, yet it was very well worthy of their consideration and also the consideration of the Committee in the interests ultimately of the State itself. Now, he would remind the Committee that there had been a controversy on this question for something like twenty-one years, and during all that period they had continually stated that there was great discontent in the Post Office, not merely on the question of wages, but as to the conditions of Post Office labour. That statement had been constantly and officially denied, but in this Report it was stated that there had been widespread discontent. Upon this he would only offer this observatin. No service could be thoroughly effective and no Department could be worked economically, in the widest sense of the word, where wide discontent existed, and he hoped—this being alleged by the Committee after full consideration of the present condition of affairs—the Postmaster General would see his way to accept the recommendations of the Committee for the removal of that state of things. He would also say that during the period to which he had referred, when the staff considered the grievances which they had to bear were great, they had never failed to consider the paramount subject of public convenience. He remembered well, some ten years ago, when things were so acute as to threaten a strike, that they were induced—and on the whole with difficulty—to give preference to the public convenience, and subordinate their private interests, a subordination which, according to this Report, seemed to have made some demand upon their sense of reason and prudence. The contentions which had been made from time to time in this House were thoroughly vindicated by this Report and by the previous Reports. Even the Tweedmouth Report, unsatisfactory as it was, did recommend an increase of pay, and they might safely draw the deduction from those Reports that the
1602
staff were suffering, and had been subjected for a long period to an injustice, the remedy for which he hoped, in the interests of the State, was near at hand.
Now he should like to say a word upon the history of the Report. It came from a Committee which was not of the staffs seeking. They desired a Select Committee of that House; in other words, they left the judgment of their case to their own employers. The answer always made was political pressure would be applied, and, he supposed, political expectations would be discounted; and that a Committee of that House was not the proper tribunal to try their case. It had, at any rate, the great merit that the staff from the first said they would abide by the final decisions of the Committee, both as to pay and conditions, and he ventured to say that a Committee of that House would not he subject to those suggestions made against it. He believed they would have done justice, and they would have had the certainty of the acceptation of their decisions. which he thought was an important point. Now the Committee ultimately appointed by the noble Lord's predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a Departmental one, and it was essentially a Committee of employers; no members of the service were placed upon it. No Labour Members were added to it, as some of them then desired. It consisted of Sir Edward Bradford, Mr. Charles Booth, the eminent statistician and social authority, and such commercial men, dealing with large numbers of employees, as the Manager of Harrod's Stores, and the Manager of the Great Central Railway. It was a tribunal which had this advantage, that it was obviously open to it to compare wages and conditions of employment generally with the wages and conditions of the Post Office service. Then much had been heard in that House of the great advantages of the Post Office service in medical aid, pensions, and the like; but he drew attention to the fact that this Committee swept away those considerations, and pointed out that if advantages were given they were balanced by some disadvantages of the public service. He pointed out that the order of reference was a restricted one, dealing simply with the question of the remuneration of labour, and, he ventured to say, of course

1603
with the advantage of knowing now what the decision had been, that few men could be found so qualified by their wide knowledge than the Committee appointed.
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer ceased to be the Postmaster-General soon after the appointment of the Committee, and the Committee very properly submitted to the noble Lord the question whether under the changed circumstances, they should proceed with their work. What the noble Lord replied was that he practically took the same view as his predecessor, and so he bound himself, of course with the latitude which attached to the acceptance or otherwise of all Reports of Committees, to at any rate a favourable construction and consideration, and he hoped also to a generous and liberal interpretation of the Report which might be presented. The consequence was that, if there was not confidence in the ultimate decision, there was a strong hope that it would be a decision that would be accepted. The staff gave evidence and the hearing was practically in public, the Press being represented, and throughout the whole proceedings there was no restriction on the conduct of the inquiry. And if the staff had an opportunity of giving evidence so equally had the Comptroller and the officials of the Post Office, in the presence, he believed, of the secretary of the Post Office, and the Committee might take it that the whole aspect of this wage question was laid before this tribunal of business men and therefore the Report was one which commanded confidence, and was one which he hoped would be accepted.
The Report indicated the position taken up on behalf of the staff. In dealing with the Report, he wished to emphasise that there were points touching whole classes and individuals which were not-accepted. In some cases he believed some classes of men would even be sufferers by the change recommended, but, taken on the whole, he thought it afforded a basis of settlement. In dealing with the various classes of the staff, he believed he might state that the sorters generally regarded the Report favourably and the postmen took the same view, though there were points of detail to which exception
1604
was taken and upon which, after the-noble Lord had stated his general view, it might be necessary to approach him., Taking the case of the postmen fen instance, the Report recommended that the system of Christmas-boxes should cease, but whether the addition of pay which only commenced after the age of twenty-six, made any real compensation for this somewhat remunerative system, bad as it was, was a question on which there were various views. And in some other respects what was proposed to the postmen was of doubtful value. In one respect there was a strong indication of the case made on behalf of the men, and that was as to the London telegraphists, for whom a maximum of £190 had always been claimed. The Committee had always been met with the statement that no such inducement was promised as a maximum of £190 after many years service, but the men had alway considered there had been a breach of faith on the part of the Department. This was a strong term to use and it was one which he did not endorse, but the Report told them that the men had been under a misapprehension—that they entered the service under a misapprehension caused by the publication of inducements on the part of the Civil Service Commissioners who conducted the examinations. For a series of years there were all sorts of barriers and obstacles to the attainment of this maximum of £190 in the shape of testimonial examinations and the like; but when they found the Committee, after going into the question thoroughly, saying there was an inducement to men to enter the service in the prospect, to use the words of the original advertisement, of obtaining a maximum of £190, and that there was a grievance there, then he thought it was a wrong which if not legally repayable was entitled undoubtedly to equitable consideration. If they had a Report dealing concretely with each class of officers in £ s. d. down to a very low point of detail, and if such a Report by employers felt it was just and right that the wages scale should be revised, he thought it was a ease of injustice, however unintentional, to the staff which called for redress, and lie hoped the noble Lord would tell the Committee that these recommendations made upon such

1605
authority would receive all the weight to which they were entitled.
There was of course one point which he ought not to fail to deal with in this summary, and that was the question of cost. Of course to make these additions to salary would involve some cost, but the very fact that the Government had to make that addition was evidence of a previous injustice in an inadequate scale of pay; and they must remember that the Post Office was a commercial undertaking which annually paid to the State a very large profit; and surely the first claim upon that profit was that of those who had helped to earn it, and that they should he reasonably, fairly, and adequately remunerated. If the Government did not do that they were really imposing a tax upon a class for the benefit of the community and on a class among the poorest and in favour o the richest. Therefore he maintained that as long as they had a balance of profit in the Post Office they at least ought to discharge fairly the claims upon it in respect to the wages of those who enabled that profit to be realised, and if they failed to do that they really approved of a system of class taxation. Sweating in any form of industry was objectionable. Parsimony was not economy in the end. The Report spoke of requirements of capacity and character and of the very high range of duties performed by these men, and the Committee very properly said that they ought to be adequately remunerated in such circumstances. There was no economy in underpaid or ill-paid labour. When the Committee found that the duties performed by the staff were responsible and exacting and demanded both character and capacity, he thought there was an unanswerable case. It was tune to redress a long-standing injustice which for nearly twenty years they had brought to the notice of the House. He could discuss the details, but this was neither the time nor the place to do so, but he thought he had indicated on the basis of this official Report some reasons why at last the time had come for the redress of grievances of too long standing.
MR. LOUGHsaid there was one thing which he should like to remark on and that was that this Report had been presented for nearly three
1606
months. What was the situation? It would be discussed in a hurry and then the Estimate would be closured without proper discussion. Having regard to the deep interest in the matter they should have had a full opportunity of expressing their opinion on it fairly.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am not responsible for that. Supply is always put down at the request of the Opposition.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not complain of the noble Lord but he was complaining of the Government generally. An arrangement ought to have been made by which the Votes could have been discussed freely. He wanted to criticise the action of the Post Office somewhat generally, but he did riot desire to direct it too personally to the noble Lord, who had only been in office for a Year or a year and a half. During his short experience they had had two Postmasters neither of whom had been entirely satisfactory, and who had left the House the constant burden of making these complaints, with which his hon. friend the Member for South Islington had dealt for so many Years.
The position was a little peculiar. This Report with which they were dealing only referred to the remuneration of the employees of this great Department of State. He was strongly of opinion that such good relations should have been established long ago between the Post Office and its employees as would have prevented the constant necessity of the matter be discussed in that House. He did not think there was any other Department of the State in which complaints of the employees were so constantly being made. Within the last few years they had had two of these Committees. The first, the Tweedmouth Committee, was practically composed of Members of that House. They were told that it was a model Committee composed of all the virtues. Its recommendations were not acted on. If they had been, and the Postmaster-General had established better relations generally with the employees, at a round table for instance, Parliament

1607
and the country would have been saved many of these discussions. The Committee would remember the circumstances out of which this last Committee sprang. Members were constantly trying to deal, with the imperfect knowledge they possessed, with the complaints made by their constituents. It was always weariness for him to have to touch these matters at all, and it was only a sense of the real injustice contained in the complaints made by the men which had induced him to devote so much time to the matter as he had done. The finger of scorn had been pointed at hon. Members for voicing these complaints but eventually the Department said, "Now we will appoint an immaculate Committee, one whose Report everyone will receive and welcome," and they set up their Committee of business men. There was no taint of Parliament about that Committee, its members had nothing to gain by courting public favour. What had they done? All the recommendations made in the past seemed to be a perfect joke compared with the Report of this Committee. It had found the Department guilty on all counts, especially in the matter of remuneration. It was in these circumstances that they desired to hear from the noble Lord what steps he proposed to take in the matter. No doubt expense might be involved. It was necessary that the matter should be treated by the Department in a broad way, because it was quite possible that by treating employees better an improved system of economy would be introduced into the Post Office. These people, after all, had important duties to perform, and while the increment of pay secured a good deal, he believed that on the whole the better treatment of the employees in this as in other businesses would he found to be the most economical policy.
One or two difficulties which the noble Lord would have to encounter might be mentioned. One was the restricted reference to the Committee. Various classes of workers were excluded from the inquiry. How would these men feel seeing that every class whose case was brought before the Committee was proved to be underpaid? Would it conduce to more contentment in the minds of those whose cases
1608
was not considered? There were the tracers, for instance. They had a constant grievance of a technical character against the Department. He thought the Committee would be justified in pressing the Department to receive these men in a sympathetic and conciliatory spirit and to hear what they had to say instead of forcing them to discuss their complaints with Members of Parliament. Another class whose case ought to be considered were the unestablished men. In his own constituency there was a large factory for the making of telephonic instruments, and he was told that hundreds of the men there employed, although they had served for periods of from two to ten years, were not established, and that amongst these unestablished men dismissals were constantly going on. Not only were they denied the general good treatment received by men on the establishment, but they had not the ordinary security enjoyed by men under any good employer. The request put forward by these men was extremely moderate, viz., that men continuously employed for two years and upwards should be placed on the establishment. If two years was too short let some other period be fixed, but the men ought to have sonic means of getting established. The Post Office ought not lightly to commence the manufacture of instruments or anything else, but if it did take it up it ought to set up fair and even generous conditions of labour. If the grievances only of the classes mentioned in the Report were dealt with the discontent would be widened. Then there was a class known as bagmen largely employed in London, and they made the simple request that they should be admitted to the advantages arising from the "stripes" system. Another class whose case was not considered was the porters, and they, too, had their grievance. It was not unreasonable to ask the noble Lord to make a statement with regard to these classes as well as those dealt with in the Report, because, if they were not dealt with, the seed of discontent would be sown, and they would have all the trouble over again.
The great complaint against both the Tweedmouth and the last Committee was the limited nature of the reference. As an illustration of the difficulties

1609
with which they were confronted he would mention one case which had come under his notice. There happened to be in Islington a man named Carless, who had asked him to put Questions in the House about his case and he had refused to do so, because he did not like to raise these matters in the House in that way. It appeared that some years ago this man was dismissed from the Post Office on a charge of theft, and he immediately met the charge in what appeared to be a reasonable way. This man contended that if he had committed any theft he ought to be prosecuted, and if it was proved that he had not committed any theft he ought not to have been dismissed. The man had been pressing that view upon the Post Office authorities for three and a half years and he could get no answer from them. The Post Office would not have been guilty of any unkindness if they had arrived at a definite conclusion satisfactory to the man and his friends in the one direction. or in the opposite direction, and yet for three and a half years the case of this individual was agitated and finally he had to come to Members of Parliament in order to bring pressure to bear upon the Department. He had seen articles quite a column long in the papers upon this case, and it was a pity that this matter should have been dismissed in this way, because he thought the Department could have dealt in a conclusive manner with the case. That was a good example in the conduct of the Post Office in these matters. Other employers did not find these difficulties, and they had no substantial grievances with any of their workmen. He did not think that with better management these difficulties would arise in the Post Office. With regard to Christmas-boxes he hoped the noble Lord would be very clear about that matter. He understood that the Committee recommended that a substantial increase should be given to the men in lieu of Christmas-boxes, but how were Christmas-boxes to be got rid of? In a report upon the Report which he had received from the men he gathered that tie Christmas-boxes amounted to something like a quarter of a million of money, and it was said that this sum would be saved to the community in return for an increase in the wages. If the community
1610
had to find this extra large sum of money for wages he thought some definite step ought to he taken to put an end in some conclusive way to the Christmas-boxes, it was a question which ought not to be left open and loose. Altogether he thought that the Department must feel that this Report was a serious reflection on the management of this great branch of the public service. It was a pity that they had got to the point of referring matters of remuneration to those gentlemen, however excellent they might be; and now that they had given a Report, which was a condemnation of the Department after ten or fifteen years of mismanagement, he appealed to the noble Lord to exercise his influence with those able men who constituted his Department to induce them to endeavour to establish better relations in the public service over which they had the control.
*MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he thought this Report established the fact that the conditions and pay of a large number of, if not of all these men was not only unsatisfactory but was, he believed, below the standard of a fair living wage. Whatever they thought of the gentlemen who formed this Committee, at least they gave an enormous amount of time and great care to the consideration of the problem. He felt that they owed a great debt to them for their trouble. It was a poor compliment, indeed, to them that the discussion of their Report should be relegated to the dog days, when Members were not in the best fettle and many were away. One thing he was sure would, emerge from this discussion, that whatever Government was in power, this subject would not he allowed to rest until fair terms of pay and service ware given re all branches of the postal service. He was also confident that both side, of the House would agree when he paid that both. Parties, when they had beep in office, were equally to blame for the unfortunate condition of things. The hon. Member for South Islington referred to the contumely with which those who had taken up the cause of these public servants were treated, and allegations thrown at them as to their action on and interest in the subject having been inspired by the pressure of electors

1611
So far as his experience of this matter went, he was able to assure friends of his who were not at all unwilling to throw that taunt at them, that those who had pressed for inquire were please to be able to come down to the House and have the Report of the Bradford Commission in their hands, showing that the allegations they made as to the condition of these men were not unfounded, but were established in the Report.
The difficulty, no doubt, which must be overcome was that of cost. The noble Lord should not try to screen himself behind the question of cost. If he did, he would simply he parting from the rule which must be the guiding rule of every Department in the State—that of the model employer. If he continued the present system on the ground that the Post Office must not cost so much to the State, he would not only be parting from that very salutary principle but he would be bringing great discredit not only upon the whole Ministry but upon all who sat upon the Ministerial Benches. The other side had practically never done anything for the Post Office servants, although they had been many years in office. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] Let him remind the House what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down when he appointed this Committee. He urged very strongly upon the House that the main consideration which must weigh on him in the appointment of the Committee was that they should report quickly, and to use his own words, "that a speedy Report was most desirable." If that were so, he must have had in his mind the important consideration as to allowing this subject to drag on, and continue the feeling of unrest and uncertainty within the ranks of the Post Office service, which was most harmful to efficiency. On that ground, if on no other, it was much to be hoped that the Postmaster-General would not put off the decision of the Government on the whole subject till next year, but would boldly tell the Committee that evening that his Estimates for the coming year would make adequate provision for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee.
1612
The Report established one principle which could not be too often made public. For something like six years they heard nothing from the authorities but assertions that the Tweedmouth Committee established finality. This Report had made short shrift of the Tweedmouth Committee, and that being so, he would remind his noble friend that if the Bradford Committee was to be used to establish finality he would not settle the unrest in the various branches of the Post Office, but would only reach complete satisfaction and efficiency when he had brought within the scope of consideration those various classes which had been exclude," from the purview of the Bradford Committee. He should only like to refer to one detail of the Committee's Report. One of the paragraphs laid down that the test of population should practically be the basis for the purpose of fixing wages, and he thought that test was not a good one. The cost of inland towns and seaside resorts was often greater than in the large towns of the Kingdom. In illustration of that, he would quote the case of Princetown, Dartmoor, where the population practicaly was one which had been brought into existence by the contiguity of the Dartmoor penal establishment. The land of that neighbourhood was held by the Duchy of Cornwall, and the working classes were not able to obtain sufficient housing accommodation, and rents were forced up owing to the Government not providing sufficient housing accommodation for the Prison staff. The test of population, therefore, was not a fair one, and he sincerely trusted that his noble friend would bean that point in mind when he dealt with these recommendations. He was bound to say it was not encouraging, when great grievances were at stake, to find that after the great labour which had been expended by the Committee to which he had referred and the subject had been from time after time debated in that House, they should have to wait another year before the findings of the Committee were put into practical operation. But better late than never. If his noble friend was able to assure the Committee that these recommendations would become effective he would be not only

1613
the most popular Postmaster for many generations, but he would remove grievances which lay now upon more than 100,000 of their fellow-citizens who did their best for the country, and whose grievances were a stain upon the Government of the country.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid he could not imagine any service connected with the Government system which it was less desirable to associate with political Parties than the Post Office. The hon. Member for Hoxton had spoken under the impression apparently that the Pest Office was a branch of the Primrose League or something of that kind.
*MR. CLAUDE HAY: I said that both sides of the House were equally to blame.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that the Post Office was a neutral institution in which they were all concerned, which they all defended, and which they all assisted to the best of their ability. He trusted they would hear no more remarks of the kind made by the hon. Member in this discussion. With respect to the merits of the question under discussion, eighteen months ago the then Postmaster-General instituted the procedure by Departmental Committee, by an independent Committee as it was called, in order that the Committee might arrive at an unbiassed conclusion and should not be influenced by votes for or against Members on the part of great postal establishments. That was the argument used at that time, but many of them thought that there ought to have been an inquiry by a Committee of Members of the House. They agreed largely with the then Postmaster-General that he should have his own way, however, on the understanding that the inquiry was going to be conducted in a business-like way and with great expedition. In their innocence they were misled by those fine phrases. They understood that if the Report of the Committee recommended any action, that action was to be taken almost immediately, and they were bound to notice the fact that although the matter was now eighteen months old the present Postmaster-General had not up to the present informed them what was in his
1614
mind. He would be glad if the noble Lord would tell them what action he intended to take. The verdict of the Committee, consisting of men not open to political influences, and acting under the Department's own reference, had gone against the Postmaster-General. What was he going to do in the face of that verdict? The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General was of a generous nature and always exceedingly straight in all his actions; and the Committee were expecting to hear from him that he intended to make this tardy act of justice. If the noble Lord satisfied them on this particular point he would get his salary covered or was it his stipend?
LORD STANLEYI have got it already.
MR. BROADHURST: At any rate the noble Lord would get his Vote without a division; but if he did not satisfy the Committee by adopting the recommendations of his own Committee then a division would have to be taken in order to emphasise their belief that the recommendations of the Committee should be acted upon at once. The recommendations of the Bradford Committee with regard to fixing wages according to population was an important point. He could nit imagine anything more delusive. He lived in a humble township of less than 5,000 people, but he could live more cheaply in Manchester where house rent and taxes would be less, and where the choice of food was greater and the cost of food less. It was evident that the noble Lord fully appreciated that position.
LORD STANLEY: I appreciate the difficulty.
MR. BROADHURST: Now, in regard to the people who served the Post Office faithfully, but who were not necessarily in a position of independence, let him tell the noble Lord his own personal experience in this matter. The postman who delivered most of his letters was a telegraph boy whom he had known for years. Before that ha was a caddie. Now he was a seasoned postman, a married man with children, and a more faithful servant the Post Office had not in their employ. He acted is

1615
postman for four or five months in a year, and at the end of that time was suspended until the next season. During the interval he had to find employment as best he could.
LORD STANLEYThe hon. Member. I think, is referring to Cromer, and refers to his postman being taken on during the summer season when he wants a caddie.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that that man had been, to the best of his knowledge, during the last twelve or fourteen years in the postal service; and he did think that if there was not full employment fur a man, in cases of that sort, during the slack season, there ought to be some continuous connection between the Post Office and such a servant. That was an illustration of thousands of other cases. When they had such excellent servants in their employment they should be taken into consideration. They seemed to be in a perpetual ferment as regarded Post Office work. At one time the abominable and disgraceful sanitary arrangements of the post offices formed a prominent subject of inquiry, and many Members of the House did not press for reform some years ago in the Grand Committee because the Post Office promised to make a change. Why could not the Post Office follow the practice adopted by the cotton trade, the coal trade, and the iron trade, and have a standing Court of Appeal to which all complaints could be referred? It would save the Department a great deal of trouble and prevent discontent among the servants. If they were always in a state of agitation the Government would not get the best work out of them. The unrest amongst the working people showed that there was a wrong somewhere and that wrong should be rectified. He trusted when the noble Lied spoke that he would tell them what was proposed in these matters, and he would suggest most respectfully to the noble Lord that the sooner they heard him the better they would be pleased. He always liked to hear him, and to-night especially they were anxious and desirous to get light from the noble Lord who was the head of this great Department.
MR. RUTHERFORDsaid it was impossible to listen to
1616
this debate without feeling a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord the Postmaster-General, because it was evident that to-night he was in a very awkward position. His position, however, had not been made by himself; it was inherited. It had been traditional to the office of the Postmaster-General to reply to all complaints for a quarter of a century back by saying that the men were contented and were well paid, and that nothing more could possibly be done. It was perfectly evident, on reading the Report of the Bradford Committee that the replies that had been made from time to time to Members of the House by the Postmaster-General had not been well founded, and that grievances had existed. As a matter of fact, instead of this being a well conducted and contented service, all over the country there was a mass of seething discontent, widespread and not confined merely to the telegraphists or the postal department, but spreading over the whole of the different departments under the Postmaster-General.
He was not going into any particular details, because he did not think this a suitable occasion; but there was no doubt about it that the state of affairs with regard to the pay of the whole of the departments of the Post Office was practically this—that nothing had been done since 1890. Nothing whatever had been done since then and very little had been done since 1881, whilst at the same time the whole of the expenses of the men in the service had been rapidly increasing. Their cost of living, their cost of travelling to and from their work, their rent, rates and taxes had been rapidly rising, and that had not been taken into account in their pay. He would only give one illustration of the position of the men in the Postal Telegraph Department. It was this: that after twenty-three years of service a competent and efficient man in the Postal Telegraph Department got £3 a week in London and £2 18s. a week in the provinces, and when they looked at the question of promotion, they would find that 16 per cent. of the whole start had obtained their maximum, and that, therefore, promotion was absolutely at an end so far as they were concerned. He thought it would be conceded that

1617
the public servants in this most important department had for many years been badly treated. Complaint after complaint had been made to Postmaster-General after Postmaster-General, and at last the noble Lord's predecessor said he would appoint what he called a Departmental Committee. The answer which had been given to Members of this House was, he ventured to think—he did not know if he was justified in using the word "insulting"—but it was exceedingly offensive. It was "Oh, you are interested because constituents of yours are urging these points and you want to get votes." So far as he was concerned he indignantly denied that. He did not believe there was a Member of that House who would pause to give consideration to any such paltry influence, because the number of votes in a any given constituency was such a trifle. But the figures and the details with respect to the whole of these men had so impressed Member after Member that they had not been able to resist taking the matter up. The Postmaster-General had only one course to adopt that night. He ought to say he would at once adopt the Report of the Bradford Committee and he ought to come boldly forward and say he would apply the same principles and give the same advantages to those other departments of the service which had not been considered in that Report; but which ought to be taken into account and given equal consideration. The Postmaster-General, if he desired to retain that high opinion which the hon. Member opposite entertained of him, ought to take some such course.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that in the very few words that he should address to the Committee he did not propose to enter into the details of this Report, nor even into its general merits or demerits, for he held very strongly that this Committee was not fitted to consider the details relating to payment of the employees of the State. Even if there was no electoral influence concerned, the Committee as a Committee—a large body of this character—could not possibly go into the many details which must necessarily arise in a matter of this nature. But there was no question to anyone who was ac-
1618
quainted with practical politics that electoral influence did arise in these cases, and he would submit that these matters ought never to come before the House or the Committee of the Whole House for direct decision. The matter was sometimes worse than it was in the case of the Post Office. Dockyard and Arsenal constituencies occasionally, as they all knew, had elections in which votes were determined on questions relating mainly to conditions of employment. But it was impossible to leave the decision of these matters in the hands of a despotic Department, in the hands soley of the employers of the men concerned, nor could they lay down the rule that supply and demand must fix the rate of wages for the employees of the State. If that rule were adopted, they would have the rate of wages probably falling to an exceedingly low level, below a real living wage, down to the lowest level they could induce people to accept. Nor could they say that when these men entered the service of the State they knew the terms they were accepting, and ought, therefore, to be contented during the whole of their career in that service; for the cost of living was constantly rising, and the value of money was somewhat falling as years went on, and no one would suggest that what was a fair wage fifty years ago would be a fair wage now, or that a fair wage now would necessarily be a fair wage fifty, twenty, or ten years hence.
There must be some means of adjusting wages from time to time according to circumstances and Parliament ought to establish some outside board or committee to act as arbitrator between the various Departments of the State and the bodies of men they employed, in cases of serious dispute. That was the course adopted in the great industries. Almost all the great industries had boards of conciliation with provision for reference to outside arbitrators in case of serious dispute. This Bradford Committee was precisely in the position of such an arbitrator; and he did not sea how the Post Office could refuse to abide by its award. They were in the position of an employer of labour whose workpeople were discontented and the dispute had been laid before an outside arbitrator for his

1619
decision. That award had been given against the Post Office, and the Government could rot well refuse to obey its verdict. Unquestionably the cost would be heavy, but it must be remembered that the Pest Office was continually earning larger and larger profits. Ten years ago its profits were only £3,000,000, now they were £4,000,000. There had been an increase of 33 per cent. in ten years, which had been made from the labour of the people employed. If the men had been underpaid the increase of their salaries was surely the first charge on this increase of profits. Those on that side of the House might of course, and probably would, be taunted with the fact that at one moment they were advocating economy in national expenditure, and at another advocating an increase in specific items of expenditure; but they had never carried their desire for economy so far as to say that the State should pay its employees such a wage as in the opinion of an entirely impartial outside board of arbitrators was below the proper standard of remuneration. From the standpoint of the Treasury, the first outcome of the policy of appointing an outside Committee had not been very propitious, but he was convinced that along these lines the State ought to proceed, and that all questions of employment and of wages of State employees ought to be referred to some form of permanent Commission or Board established more or less on the lines of the Civil Service Commission.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid although his remarks would be brief still he might say he had studied this question for a great number of years, and had been invited by large numbers of postmen to take part in deputations to the Postmaster-General. He had consulted Members of the Opposition on this question and thought the facts which he should place before the Committee would be such as to induce the Postmaster-General to take action in this case. The number of Post Office Officials exceeded the number of the British Army a few years ago. They numbered 176,000. They made claims which the Member for West Monmouth said presented an abyss that the country would never contemplate. He had on one
1620
occasion been invited to accompany a deputation to Mr. Arnold Morley. He asked how many Members of Parliament were going on the deputation and he was told, "There are thirty-nine and you-make forty." Imagine forty Members of Parliament waiting on the Postmaster-General. Call it intimidation. He said it was not fair and the result was he stopped the deputation. He much regretted that his right hon. friend had already received a deputation of twenty Members of Parliament. The time had come when both sides of the House should resist the illicit demands of the postal service. He sympathised with the demands of public servants, but Sir George Murray proved conclusively that the postmen were paid better than the policemen, and showed by figures that they were indeed very well cared for, that they were paid on a scale of wages which no other-person occupying their position now got, that they had doctors to attend them when they were ill and that they were partly clothed. The whole story told by Sir George Murray was one which hon. Members opposite and employers of labour should study. The recommendations of the Bradford Committee, he would point out, would if carried out cost two millions a year to the Treasury and another half million would be required to satisfy the claims which were not touched. But notwithstanding that important Committee, the next day he received, and hon. Members received, a protest against the Committee saying that the employees would never rest until they had a Parliamentary Committee. He mentioned this because he thought the House should hack up the authorities in exercising what they consider proper and fair jurisdiction, and that if hon. Members would do as was clone in Australia and disfranchise the postmen, and give them a member of their own, if they liked, it would be better for the country. That was one of the reasons why he hesitated about taking over the telephones when he considered that another 50,000 men would be added to the public service who would demand pensions and increased pay. He was sorry that his speech might be considered unbecoming and very unpopular. He was looked upon as a sort of Radical with regard to these matters. Still they had given during the last ten

1621
years large concessions to the postmen amounting to two and a half millions while they had only given to the public in concessions in post office facilities a sum equal to £55,000. He wished hon. Members on this occasion to be true to themselves and to take such measures as to secure that they should have fair play and not be intimidated by the enormous number of postal employees who might be a positive danger to the country in future.
MR. NANNETTIsaid the speech which they had just heard was one which should have been delivered before the Committee was appointed and before the Report which they were there to consider that night was made. He reminded the hon. Member who had just spoken that the Committee who had reported to that House was not a Committee composed of Members of that House or one which could by any means be charged with being very favourable to the demands of the employees. It was a Committee of business men chosen by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer because they would present a fair and unbiassed Report. He regretted, in dealing with the Report before them, they had not had the advantage of hearing from the noble Lord what were the intentions of the Government with regard to it.
And it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [22ND ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,615,509,
1622
be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
MR. NANNETTI, continuing his speech, said that when the House adjourned he was endeavouring to point out that what they had to discuss that evening was not the question raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury but the question of the Committee appointed by the Government to consider the question of the wages of the postal employees. The House would remember that when this question came before the Committee a year-and-a-half ago, when a Motion was moved to reduce the salary of the then Postmaster-General, it was alleged by those who moved and supported the Motion that the many grievances with which the postal servants had to contend should form the subject of an independent inquiry. At that time they were met by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer with the statement that their information was not correct, that the postal servants were a well-favoured body of men, and that if they had a grievance at all it was limited to the one question of wages. At that time a Committee was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, which was opposed to these men, and which had now presented a Report to the House. Any person who had read that Report must admit that serious grievances did and do exist in the postal service. They had it laid down by that Committee whose members were free from outside pressure; that widespread discontent existed in the postal service. That Report, which was not asked for by the men, but which was rather taken by the men because they could get no other redress from the House, and because they knew the justice of their cause, had been issued, arid they wanted to know whether the Government would accept the findings of their own Committee. They said the findings were not all they could wish, and the service journals said that they were only partial and did not meet the requirements of the men, but that they were prepared to accept that which had been proved by

1623
the findings that they were entitled to. Members on both sides of the House agreed that the cause for complaint had been made out, and they said that the Government was bound in honour to accept the findings of their own Committee, and that was what was asked. It was all nonsense for the hon. Member for Canterbury to call attention to what would be the result and expense of giving effect to that Report. The Committee said that at the present moment seething discontent existed. Was that a state of things that should exist in a public Department? It was the duty of the Postmaster-General to see that the men employed were contented and happy, and that there should be no cause for complaint. He hoped they should have no case of postponement. It was no answer to say that the remedy would cost an enormous sum of money, £2,000,000 the hon. Member for Canterbury said. Even if it did, the Post Office was a commercial undertaking and had worked at a profit. Last year the profit was over £4,000,000.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid there was a loss of £1,000,000 on the Telegraphs.
MR. NANNETTIsaid even then it left a profit of £3,000,000. That being the case, the Government had no right to sweat labour and ought to pay fair wages. These men at one time rose to the occasion, but they saw that they were doing an injustice to the public, and did not resort to extreme measures. But now that a Committee had brought in a finding—a Committee suggested by the Postmaster-General—the claims of the men ought not to be refused. When he originally brought the case before the House he was speaking solely on behalf of the Irish portion of the service. The claims he then made had been verified by the Report. The claims as to dual work, split duty, and promotion in the Irish Office had all been backed by the Report. The one point dealt with was remuneration. In dealing with the recommendations in that Report, he asked the Postmaster-General not to lose sight of the unattached men and the engineers and linesmen. These must be considered before this question could be settled finally. Let them have a settlement of
1624
the question Once and for all. It was all very well to say these men were recommended an increase of 4s. a week, but they were asked to give up their Christmas-boxes, a very considerable item. Certainly a further sum of 4s. per week would not be adequate remuneration for them. If postmen were asked to give up the considerable item of Christmas-boxes, the substitution of 4s. a week would not be an adequate recompense. It was unnecessary to labour the matter further. The point the House had to insist upon was that a Report had been presented by a Committee appointed by the Government, and what they asked was that the Government should give effect to the verdict pronounced against them by their own tribunal.
SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid the reference to this Committee had very fairly been limited to the lower classes of servants, there having been no strong evidence that the higher departments required revision. In fact, it was generally conceded that the officials in the upper branch of the service had been favourably dealt with, and that those who were less fortunately placed in the matter of wages ought to be dealt with in a broad spirit. When the Committee was appointed, some misgivings were felt because the men had no direct representation thereupon, and the position of the men was made the stronger by the fact that an outside Committee, absolutely unconnected with the Department, and presumably altogether unbiassed, had brought in a verdict in favour of a revision of the pay of these younger officials. The statement of the hon. Member opposite with regard to Christmas-boxes was too true. They had grown into such an institution that the postmen calculated upon them as part of their income. That was a most unfortunate position for the servants of any public Department to be placed in. Whatever pay was necessary to support a man in his proper social position should be paid by his employer. Personally, he would not allow any of his employees to seek a Christmas-box or other favour from his customers, and if the Post Office undertook to deliver letters, and received a reasonable fee for so doing, their servants ought not to be

1625
paid afterwards by those who received the letters. Such a practice demoralised the servant, because, if the man did not receive the expected gift, he was naturally irritated against the person who withheld it. Therefore, he held very strongly that, whatever was done by the Postmaster-General in this connection, he should, once and for all, place the humbler servant in such a position, so far as pay was concerned, that there would be no inducement for him to humble himself by seeking Christmas-boxes or any other favours.
With regard to the general service, there were two or three ways in which this Committee recommended that the pay of the servants of the Post Office should be regulated. He had heard it stated that a small country town was more expensive to live in than a large town, and an hon. Member opposite had given that as his own experience. He did not think that that was the general impression. In the first place house rent was very much less in small country towns than in London. The question was how they could make the service of the Post Office a service that could be moved easily front place to place, because the man who had the capacity should have the avenue open to him to carry that capacity anywhere throughout the length and breadth of the land. There were two principles which they ought to fix in regard to that man. In the first place there should be a fixed pay for a definite service wherever the man was moved to. They must have a graduated scale of pay according to the cost of living in different places. Supposing they transferred a man from Belfast, and they found that there his lodgings were costing hint 6s. or 8s. a week. If he came to London a similar lodging would cost him 10s. or 12s. a week. The fairest way was to make up for that by an extra allowance for the extra cost of living. That was one of the recommendations of this Committee, and it solved the problem by giving a fixed payment for a definite service, and then graduating the advantage according to the additional cost of living in the place to which the man moved.
With regard to the telegraphists, no man who went into a large telegraphic
1626
station could fail to be impressed with the enormous strain which was put upon the men. He thought it would be well for them all if now and again hon. Members paid visits to such stations to see what was actually going on. They should go into such stations at ten, eleven, and twelve at night, and about two and three in the morning, and see what pressure there was on the operators to get news over the wires in time for the morning papers, which hon. Members read, without much consideration for the cost of producing them, at their breakfast tables. He asked the Postmaster-General to remember the enormous strain there was on those engaged in such telegraphic departments. With regard to postmen they now and again found men prosecuted for wrongdoing in connection with the Post Office service; but he was bound to say that if they had regard to the enormous number employed in that Department, and the many temptations placed in their reach, that the service was wonderfully free from blemish. He did not know of any men who deserved their sympathy, and had merited their confidence, more than the servants in this great Department of the State.
A word with regard to the location of post offices. He might tell the Postmaster-General that he thought there was to some extent, especially in large towns, rather a niggardly disposition shown in respect to the locating of their post offices. There was a contriving to put them into shops and to let the shopkeepers have charge of them. Let them take such an office connected with the telegraph system. One merchant would have very great hesitancy in going into the shop of another merchant to deliver a telegram, of probably a very delicate nature connected with his business and markets, for fear of the temptation to the merchant connected with the post office to take advantage of his position, and use the information handed to him for transmission. The divisional post offices should be clear of such drawbacks, they should be under the jurisdiction of the Post Office and managed by Post Office officials. They should be entirely free front all trade and commerce and front the temptation that might arise in connection with trade interests and

1627
trade speculation. With regard to the houses he did not complain of the city of Belfast, because the postmaster and the medical officer of that place had always been willing to lend their assistance, and they had worked harmoniously together. The postmaster had even asked the assistance of the Public Health Department of the city in connection with the health of the workers in the Post Office buildings and the sanitary arrangements which were necessary for a large staff of men. Personally he did not see why Government offices should be free from inspection by the sanitary department, although he understood that the law laid down that they had no right to inspect for sanitary purposes any Government office. He thought he was right in saying that that was recognised as the law of the land. He was aware that they might have some pettifogging officer trying to show his petty authority by demanding that this and that and the other thing should be done in the office, but on the broad principle that every Department of the State should be kept in thorough sanitary order, he did not see why the due inspection of a Government office should be thwarted either by law or practice. A medical officer charged with the service of his country ought to have no personal desire to place any stumbling block in the way of carrying on Post Office work, and their only desire should be to see that Government offices were kept in the same good sanitary condition as they were in the habit of demanding in ordinary workshops in the city. He hoped the day had gone by when it would be held that a Government office where labour was employed should be exempted from the general inspection which applied to every other building where workmen were employed, and which was necessary to ensure, not only the health of officials, but also the general health of the community at large. In conclusion, he hoped the Postmaster-General was not going to give them a mere answer putting them off. They all knew the present Postmaster-General and esteemed him. Surely, if there was any meaning in the Committee's recommendations, they should be carried out. He earnestly asked the Postmaster-General to give a favourable reply to their appeals. He knew his heart would
1628
break if he had to say "no" to them that night. By his very genial countenance he thought the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to gratify their wishes or to say, "Gentlemen, I cannot put this question into the present financial year; but having appointed this Committee I feel honourably bound to carry out, not in every detail, possibly not to the maximum, their recommendations, but to carry out in a fair and generous spirit what has been recommended towards the improvement of a service of the State that deserves our sympathy and support."
*MR. NORMANsaid the time was painfully and even absurdly inadequate to discuss this question when the Vote would be closured within half-an-hour. He desired, however, to raise two questions to which he hoped the Postmaster-General would be good enough to refer when he replied on the debate. One of these was: Is it the intention to reimpose an examination or technical barrier for telegraphists? The Postmaster-General would remember that this had been found both unsuccessful and unjust in the past, and two of his predecessors in office had condemned it. He asked the noble Lord to state what was intended to be done in that matter. The other point he wished to speak on related to the pay in certain areas. The pay in areas with a population of over 100,000 was to be higher than in other districts, and he would like to have an interpretation of the Committee's recommendation on that subject. In Wolverhampton the population was 95,712, but the total area served by the Post Office there contained a population of over 100,000. Was the higher pay to be given in such an area? Would not the noble Lord regard that as a special case under Clause 140 of the Bradford Committee's Report? There were other points in which he was interested, but he did not raise them simply because of lack of time.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he had been referred to in this debate by the hon. Member for Canterbury, and he would take the opportunity of making one or two observations. He

1629
agreed in the main with the conclusions arrived at by the gentlemen who had signed this Report. He had never read a Report which seemed to him to be so thorough, so clear, and so convincing in its nature. At the same time he wished to register here his protest against methods that were pursued by Civil servants in attempting to practically coerce Members of Parliament into the acceptance of their case. It was perfectly true that a letter was written to him soon after he became a Member of the House suggesting, and articles were written in the Postal Service papers also suggesting, that he was practically a traitor, having broken pledges that he had given, He was glad to say that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Postal Clerks Association withdrew the charge upon the basis that he had not made a pledge. But means were used to belittle him because they did not like his acting with the Government on a particular occasion, and he made up his mind, as he had done many years ago when he saw the same thing exercised in Australia, that it would be a bad thing indeed for the Civil servants and purity of public life that Civil servants should be permitted to exercise undue influence upon Members of Parliament. He had no reason to retreat from that position. He agreed with the substance of this Report, but he was afraid the Postmaster-General was not going to consider these claims as favourably as he ought. The noble Lord would plead, he was sure, that this was a commercial organisation. Well, if it was, he saw no reason why the one milch-cow of the 'Government should be denied decent treatment. It seemed to him too much was expected of the Postal Department; and if efficiency of the public service was effected by parsimony on the part of the Postmaster-General then he thought it was time this the House made a protest, not because Civil servants invited them to do so, but because their claims were, he believed, just and sound. He therefore made his plea to the Postmaster-General to consider these claims, not only carefully, but with an eye to the fact that when the people of the country read the Report they would be convinced as he had been, and many of them had been, that the claims of these Civil servants were just and sound.
1630
Before he closed he wanted to say a word about one class not vet mentioned in the debate that afternoon, namely, the women. Some Years ago when considering the question of residences for educated women in London he went into the whole case of the living of women in London. If they examined this Report they would find that the females in this department were paid, at nineteen years of age, £52 a year, and it was impossible for a decent woman to live in London on that amount. He thought when the House came to examine such facts as those they must necessarily register their sympathy with the claims that had been made; but as to registering his vote against the Government upon this matter he would not do so for the simple reason that he would not be made in any sense the servant of the Civil servants of the State. He considered it an unsound thing. He agreed that these were questions that should be raised above the purview of the House and should be settled by a permanent Committee.
LORD STANLEY: I have allowed as many hon. Members to express their views as possible, but I feel the moment has come to reply to the criticisms that have been made on the Department over which I preside. The general run of the debate has undoubtedly been upon what we call the Bradford Committee, but there have been one or two subjects which I think it will be better to clear up before I come to the principal subject of the debate. The hon. Member for West Islington brought up the case of a man called Carless who was dismissed some years ago on the ground that there was a great suspicion, at all events, that he committed a theft. He has recently agitated, and I must say very fairly agitated, on his own behalf to clear himself of the accusation. He has put forward various statements both in writing to myself and in the Press which are not substantiated, and which are in fact contradicted by the records, but at the same time he has brought forward new facts which I think anybody in my position would be wrong to put quite aside and not take into consideration. Of course, it is very difficult to know what to do under such circumstances.

1631
Probably it might have been better at the moment to have prosecuted the man and to have given him a chance to clear himself if he could; but that, of course, is out of the question now and I have to consider how I can do justice and at the same time exclude the man who was dishonest. I am entirely without bias in this case, and what I have decided to do is the only method that appears to me possible—to have the case thoroughly investigated by two gentlemen in the Post office who have not been in any way intimately connected with the former decision, though, of course, they have seen the papers, and for him to be allowed to give the fullest possible explanation of his own conduct before them, and for the whole matter to be referred to me for my consideration and decision.
There are three other small matters that have been brought up. The hon. Member for Leicester brought up the question of the auxiliaries, who are apparently postmen one day and golf caddies another. These are matters very difficult to deal with, because the House will clearly recognise that there are times, Christmas, for instance, and in the summer at watering places, when we have to have extra men who would be redundant during the rest of the season; and it is quite impossible, therefore, to put these men on the establishment. The only thing we can do, and 1 think we may be able to, is, when these men are employed as auxiliaries, to see that they are paid excellent wages, and to do all that we can afterwards to put them on the establishment if possible. The hon. Baronet behind me has spoken of one other matter, and that was about the sanitary condition of the post offices. I do not know whether hon. Members have been in the House after twelve o'clock, but, if so, they will have seen my struggles to get the Post Office Sites Bill through, which only means that I want to supply sanitary offices in place of insanitary offices. They will recognise the amount of encouragement I am getting from the House when I have embarked upon such a project. The hon. Member mentioned the subject of Home Office inspectors inspecting these
1632
buildings. I cannot agree that it would be possible under all circumstances to allow such inspectors at all times and at all places to inspect the various post offices, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saving that, if he has any doubt as to the sanitary condition of any post office he should certainly employ such an inspector to give me a report.
I have now got rid of all subsidiary points, arid I come to the main question, which is the dealing by the Department and the Government with the findings of the Bradford Committee. First of all I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for one of the Ridings of Yorkshire. Although we try and hide it we must in time recognise that it is quite impossible for either side to go on for long if we are to he swayed in all these matters of increased wages by any political pressure that may be put upon us. It does: not only refer to postmen. There is not a class receiving Government wages which will not, when it sees one class get an increase by agitation, at once try the same thing. All such questions as pay should be referred not to this House, where whatever we may preach we certainly do not practice—we always preach that we are not influenced by political motives—but should be referred to some judicial body, who could feel no outside influence and look at the matter as between employed and employer, with the object of giving to the employed those wages which in the open market a good employer would give to his employees, and at the same time protect the master, which is the Government here, from any outside influence. That being so, and being admitted I hope by the House, I feel a time may arise when both sides of the House should devote themselves to forming some such judicial body which shall be free from those circulars which we get imploring us to vote extra money for the employees of the. Government. I mean a body whose action in the matter would be absolutely final; that is my idea of a judicial body. The hon. Member said he looked upon this particular Committee as having been a body of arbitrators whose Report we should accept as an arbitration award. The hon. Member may be

1633
perfectly right in so accepting it himself, but those who are mostly concerned, the employees of the Post Office, take a diametrically opposite view. In one of the circulars they kindly sent to me they said—
"We must make it perfectly clear that we do not regard the Committee in any sense as an arbitration board."
which is rather against the argument of the hon. Member. With regard to ordinary circulars I cannot complain. Every man has a got right, if he likes to circularise Members of Parliament as long as he thinks they are concerned with his prospects and future, but here is one circular I have objected to. A circular was sent round at the bottom of which was a paragraph which could be torn off which Members were asked to sign, telling him he ought to do this or that. Now I object to receive these recommendations. I am perfectly ready in such matters to receive any complaints or recommendations from the men themselves; they can send them to me straight, but hon. Members can give me their views and opinions in this House and in this House alone. I think no member of the Government ought to get those circulars; we ought to have their views straight from hon. Members themselves and not through any independent channel.
I will deal with some of the difficulties. In the first place, the Report does not comply with the reference because no comparison is made with the rates of pay current in other occupations. In other words, the Committee was asked to report upon the conditions of these men as compared with those of men in other trades in order that we might see for ourselves what position we were putting these men in in the social scale and might be told whether they were still as badly treated. The Committee did not do that. They expressly excluded that and took as the basis on which to form the Report, the numbers and character of those who offered and their contentment. They admit that the numbers of the men we get and their character is everything that could be desired, and that we get the right kind of men, but they add, granted these two things, they are discontented and you must raise their wages.
1634
I say that that is a direct premium on discontent. It is a direct encouragement to the men, to say we will give you everything we think right now, but if you agitate you will get more in the future. They went outside the reference because they propose a complete re-organisation of the whole of the office, including the overseers, and on this particular subject they took no evidence of any sort or kind. I admit that to a certain extent it is impossible to increase the pay without some reorganisation of the office, but the House will see the difficulty one is in, being asked to deal with the question when the whole of the increase of pay is practically wrapped up in the reorganisation of the whole system which employs 180,000 men.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Will the noble Lord say whether he has any intention of adopting any of the recommendations?
LORD STANLEY: Hon. Members themselves pointed out some of the great difficulties that are contained in this Report. There is the question of Christmas-boxes, a small Blotter in itself, but yet it must be remembered that in this Report there is an increase of pay given on the distinct understanding that Christmas-boxes should be given up. Everybody agrees that these Christmas boxes are not in accordance with the right principle and that they should be given up, but then we have an hon. Member coining down, speaking on behalf of those whom he represents, and asking not only that an increase of pay should be given, but that Christmas-boxes should be kept on.
MR. NANNETTI: I suggested nothing of the kind, I said that if You take away Christmas-boxes the equivalent should be given in lieu of what is taken away.
LORD STANLEY: What I understood the hon. Member to say was that an increase of pay should be given, and also some further equivalent in lieu of Christmas-boxes. That is different from the Report, and asks a considerable amount more. There is also the question of administration, the question of the

1635
senior men being made overseers. It would be quite impossible to put that into operation. Another question is the question of the areas. It is quite impossible to put that into operation. It does not follow that the increase of expenses over the normal is co-existent with the population of the town in which a man is placed. All these are points put before me with which I have to deal. I may have been considered to be unsympathetic, but that is not my intention. I quite admit that the Report has shown that there are increases that will have to be given. I quite admit that it has been shown that there are men in a position which it is not possible for a model employer to justify. An hon. Member has mentioned the subject of women employed by the Post Office. That is a question which certainly ought to be considered. Another is the question of rural postmen. All these are matters
for consideration and I propose to go fully into the question in the autumn. The extent to which the country will be committed by these proposals will be over a million a year, and the House will think I am justified when I say that I require time to consider these proposals, and to bring the matter forward on the Estimates next year, and I can only say that I shall examine the Report and the proposals in it with the utmost consideration towards the men of the Post Office.
And, it being Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 317.)
The Chairman then proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order 15, to put severally the Questions. That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each Class of the Civil Service Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, Army, and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CLASS I.
2. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,088,788, be granted to His
1638
Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

2. Osborne (including a Supplementary sum of £5,450)

10,550

3. Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds

69,100

5. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

40,700

6.

Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

26,300

7.

Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

38,000

9.

Public Buildings, Great Britain

290,900

10.

Surveys of the United Kingdom

120,409

12.

Peterhead Harbour

22,000

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 318.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert I.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cust, Henry John C.

Hope, J. F. Sheffield, Brightside

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Arrol, Sir William

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Jeffreys., Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Duke, Henry Edward

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kimber, Sir Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Knowles, Sir Lees

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Bigwood, James

Fisher, William Hayes

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bingham, Lord

Fitzroy, Hon, Edward Algernon

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bond, Edward

Flower, Sir Ernest

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Forster, Henry William

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Boulnois, Edmund

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Bousfield, William Robert

Gardner, Ernest

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

Brassey, Albert

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lowe, Francis William

Bull, William Jones

Gore, Don. S. F. Ormsby-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Butcher, John George

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Green, Walfrd D. (Wednesbury)

Macdona, John Cumming

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Charrington, Spencer

Gretton, John

Malcolm, Ian

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Morrell, George Herbert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Mount, William Arthur

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graharn (Bute

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Myers, William Henry

Remnant, James Farquharson

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Renwick, George

Tuff, Charles

Nicholson, William Graham

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Tnfnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Valentia, Viscount

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Webb, Colonel William George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Percy, Earl

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Pierpoint, Robert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wylie, Alexander

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Spear, John Ward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Purvis, Robert

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Pym, C. Guy

Stroyan, John

Randles, John S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Holland, Sir William Henry

Robson, William Snowdon

Atherley-Jones, L.

Horniman, Frederick John

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bell, Richard

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Runciman, Walter

Benn, John Williams

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Boland, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Shackleton, David James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Langley, Batty

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Broadhurst, Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Slack, John Bamford

Caldwell, James

Leanly, Edmund

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Causton, Richard Knight

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Cawley, Frederick

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

Cremer, William Randal

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Delany, William

Lough, Thomas

Tomkinson, James

Doogan, P. C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Elibank, Master of

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tully, Jasper

Emmott, Alfred

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ure, Alexander

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Moss, Samuel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Weir, James Galloway

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norman, Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Grant, Corrie

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Harwood, George

Rea, Russell

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rigg, Richard

Yoxall, James Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Higham, John Sharpe

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Jacoby and Mr. Crook.

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

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

AYES.

Agg-Gardrer, Tames Tynte

Fisher, William Hayes

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Maconochie, A. W.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

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

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Morrell, George Herbert

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mount, William Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bigwood, James

Grenfell, William Henry

Myers, William Henry

Bingham, Lord

Gretton, John

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nicholson, William Graham

Bond, Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Boulnois, Edmund

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Bousfield, William Robert

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brassey, Albert

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heaton, John Henniker

Percy, Earl

Bull, William James

Helder, Augustus

Pierpoint, Robert

Butcher, John George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Charrington, Spencer

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Purvis, Robert

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hunt, Rowland

Pym, C. Guy

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

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Randles, John S.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Ratcliff, R. F.

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Reid, James (Greenock)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kenyon Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Renwick, George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cust, Henry John C.

Lawrence, Wm. F (Liverpool)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Davenport, William Bromley-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Davies Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dickson, Charles Scott

Llewellyn, Evan Harry

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Loder Gerald Walter Erskine

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.),

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Duke, Henry Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Spear, John Ward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs-

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Macdona, John Cumming

Stroyan, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Thornton, Percy M.

Webb, Colonel William George

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Tuff, Charles

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

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Valentia, Viscount

Wylie, Alexander

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Helme, Norval Watson

Runciman, Walter

Bell, Richard

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Benn, John Williams

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Boland, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shackleton, David James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Horniman, Frederick John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Jsaacs, Rufus Daniel

Slack, John Bamford

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jacoby, James Alfred

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sullivan, Donal

Causton, Richard Knight

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cremer, William Randal

Langley, Batty

Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

Crooks, William

Laylaml-Barratt, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leamy, Edmund

Toulmin, George

Delany, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Tully, Jasper

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ure, Alexander

Doogan, P. C.

Levy, Maurice

Wallace, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Emmott, Alfred

Lyell, Charles Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

Whitley, T. H. (Halifax)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Partington, Oswald

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

Rea., Russell

Yoxall, lames Henry

Grant, Curie

Rigg, Richard

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Cawley.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Harwood, George

Robson, William Snowdon

13.

Rates on Government Property

332,277

14.

Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

110,737

15.

Railways, Ireland

27,815

£1,088,788"

CLASS II.
3. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,263,014, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

House of Lords Offices

9868

2.

House of Commons Offices

21,060

3.

Treasury and Subordinate Offices

54,639

4.

Home Office

104,094

5.

Foreign Office

35,771

6.

Colonial Office

27,750

7.

Privy Council Office

5,680

9.

Mercantile Marine Services

69,251

10.

Bankruptcy Department of Board of Trade

9

11.

Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

54,337

12.

Charity Commission

14,633

1642

£

13.

Civil Service Commission

25,110

14.

Exchequer and Audit Department

39,054

15.

Friendly Societies Registry

4,881

16.

Local Government Board

142,089

18.

Mint, including Coinage

63

19.

National Debt Office

7,439

20.

Public Record Office

14,965

21.

Public Works Loan Commission

7

22.

Registrar General's Office

22,146

23.

Stationery and Printing

404,362

24.

Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

13,171

25.

Works and Public Buildings Office

39,649

26.

Secret Service

25,000

Scotland.

27.

Secretary for Scotland's Office

10,495

28.

Fishery Board

10,155

29.

Lunacy Commission

3,423

£

30.

Registrar General's Office

2,732

Ireland.

32.

Lord Lieutenant's Household

2,826

33.

Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices

14,371

35.

Charitable Donations and Bequests Office (including a Supplementary sum of £130)

1,148

£.

36.

Local Government Board

37,886

37.

Public Record Office, Ireland

3,254

38.

Public Works Office

21,773

39.

Registrar General's Office

6,716

40.

Valuation and Boundary Survey

13,207

£1,263,014"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 319.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lowe, Francis William

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Flower, Sir Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Maconochie, A. W.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Gardner, Ernest

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

Malcolm, Ian

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon):

Big wood, James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Bingham, Lord

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Morpeth, Viscount

Bond, Edward

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Morrell, George Herbert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Grenfell, William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Boulnois, Edmund

Gretton, John

Mount, William Arthur

Bousfield William Robert

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Brassey, Albert

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bull, William James

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Myers, William Henry

Butcher, John George

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Nicholson, William Graham

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Heaton, John Henniker

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helder, Augustus

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Parkes, Ebenezer

Charrington, Spencer

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Houston, Robert Paterson

Percy, Earl

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

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Pierpoint, Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

Hunt, Rowland

Plummer. Sir Walter R.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

Purvis, Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Pym, C. Guy

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Keswick, William

Randles, John S.

Cust, Henry John C.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ratcliff, R. F.

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Knowles, Sir Lees

Reid, James (Greenock)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Renwick, George

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Duke, Henry Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Stroyan, John

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Thornton, Percy M.

Wylie, Alexander

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tuff, Charles

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Walker, Col. William Hall

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Spear, John Ward

Webb, Colonel William George

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Runciman, Walter

Bell, Richard

Harwood, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Benn, John Williams

Helme, Norval Watson

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Boland, John

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

Shackleton, David James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Slack, John Bamford

Bright, Allan Heywood

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Broadhurst, Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones David Brynmor (Swansea

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Causton, Richard Knight

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Tomkinson, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Cremer, William Randal

Leamy, Edmund

Tully, Jasper

Crooks, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Ure, Alexander

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Levy, Maurice

Wallace, Robert

Delany, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Dunn, Sir William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Luke (York, W. R.)

Elibank, Master of

Moss, Samuel

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Emmott, Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Partington, Oswald

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

Ffrench, Peter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Rea, Russell

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr. Higham.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Robson, William Snowdon

CLASS III.
4. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,016,511, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for expenditure in respect of the following Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

Law Charges

35,232

2.

Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

22,199

3.

Supreme Court of Judicature

177,515

4.

Land Registry

28,827

5.

County Courts

23,000

6.

Police, England and Wales

25,854

7.

Prisons, England and the Colonies

375,762

1646

£

8.

Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

113,957

9.

Broadmoor Criminal] Lunatic Asylum

21,701

Scotland.

10.

Law Charges and Courts of Law

54,148

11.

Register House, Edinburgh

27,678

12.

Crofters' Commission

2,590

13.

Prisons

50,570

Ireland.

14.

Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

33,416

15.

Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

57,718

1647

£

17.

County Court Officers. etc.

66,584

18.

Dublin Metropolitan Police

37,961

19.

Royal Irish Constabulary

739,608

20.

Prisons.

65,476

21.

Reformatory and Industrial Schools

53,000

£

22.

Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

3,715

£2,016,511"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 320.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Forster, Henry William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Galloway, William Johnson

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Arrol, Sir William

Gordon J. (Londonderry, South

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Mount, William Arthur

Begot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balcarres, Lord

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Myers, William Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Grenfell, William Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

O'Neill, Hoe. Robert Torrens

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Bigwood, James

Hamilton Marq. of (L'donderry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bingham, Lord

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Percy, Earl

Bond, Edward

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Pierpoint, Robert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heaton, John Henniker

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Boulnois, Edmund

Helder Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bousfield, William Robert

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brassey, Albert

Hope J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pryce-Joens, Lt.-Col. Edward

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Purvis, Robert

Bull, William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pym, C. Guy

Butcher, John George

Howard J. (Midd., Tottenham

Randles, John S.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hunt, Rowland

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Renwick, George

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Charrington, Spencer

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Keswick, William

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lawrence, Wm. F. Liverpool)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sinclair, Louis (Rumford)

Cust, Henry John C.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Danenport, W. Bromley-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Davies Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

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

Dickson, Charles Scott

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Spear, John Ward

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Dorington, Rt. Hon Sir John E.

Lowe, Francis William

Stroyan, John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lucas, Reginald J. Portsmouth

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Thornton, Percy M.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Macdona, John Cumming

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tuff, Charles

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

W'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Walker, Col. William Hall

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Warde, Cloonel C. E.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Webb, Colonel William George

Flower, Sir Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton nod Lyne

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wylie, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair.

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bell, Richard

Harwood, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Benn, John Williams

Helme, Norval Watson

Shackleton, David James

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharpe

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

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

Slack, John Bamford

Brigg, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Caldwell, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Sullivan, Donal

Causton, Richard Knight

Jacoby, James Alfred

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Tomkinson, James

Cremer, William Randal

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Toulmin, George

Crooks, William

Langley, Batty

Tully, Jasper

Dalziel, James Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Ure, Alexander

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Wallace, Robert

Delany, William

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Weir, James Galloway

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.

Elibank, Master of

Lyell, Charles Henry

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Emmott, Alfred

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Partington, Oswald

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Russell Rea and Mr. Bright.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Grant Corrie

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Robson, William Snowdon

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Runciman, Walter

CLASS IV.
5. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,110,267, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services, included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

Board of Education

5,238,437

2.

British Museum

90,171

3.

National Gallery

7,065

4.

National Portrait Gallery

2,682

5.

Wallace Collection

3,539

6.

Scientific Investigation etc., United Kingdom

24,407

£

7.

Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

103,200

8.

Public Education, Scotland

1,003,724

Ireland.

10.

Public Education

633,625

11.

Endowed Schools Commissioners

535

12

National Gallery

582

13.

Queen's Colleges

2,300

£7,110,267"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 321.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Balcarres, Lord

Blundell, Coloonel Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Bond, Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Boulnois, Edmund

Arrol, Sir William

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Bousfield, William Robert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Brassey, Albert

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bigwood, James

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bingham, Lord

Bull, William James

Butcher, John George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Percy, Earl

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pierpoint, Robert.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hornby, Sir William Herry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pretyman, Ernest George

Charrington, Spencer

Hunt, Rowland

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Purvis Robert

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Pym, C. Guy

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Randles, John S.

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Keswick, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Renwick, George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cust, Henry John C.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Rolleston. Sir John F. L.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Spear, John Ward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon, Alfred

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Macdona, John Cumming

Stroyan, John

Fisher, William Hayes

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Maconochie, A. W.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy, M.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Forster, Henry William

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Tuff, Charles

Galloway, William Johnson

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Walker, Col. William Hall

Gordon. J. (Londonderry, South

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Morpeth, Viscount

Webb, Colonel William George

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morrell, George Herbert

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Whitmore, Charles Algernon.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Gretton, John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wylie, Alexander

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Myers, William Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hall, Edward Marshall

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Nicholson, William Graham

Haslett, Sir James Horner

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Heaton, John Henniker

Parkes, Ebenezer

Helder, Augustus

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cremer, William Randall

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bell, Richard

Crooks, William

Fuller, J. M. F.

Benn, John Williams

Dalziel, James Henry

Grant, Corrie

Boland, John

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Delany, William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Brigg, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Bright, Allan Heywood

Doogan, P. C.

Harwood, George

Broadhurst, Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Reline, Norval Watson

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Elibank, Master of

Higham, John Sharpe

Caldwell, James

Emmott, Alfred

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

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Holland, Sir William Henry

Causton, Richard Knight

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Horniman, Frederick John

Cawley, Frederick

Ffrench, Peter

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Jacoby James Alfred

1652

1653

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Rigg, Richard

Tully., Jasper

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Ure, Alexander

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wallace, Robert

Langley, Batty

Robson, William Snowdon

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Runciman, Walter

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Weir, James Galloway

Levy, Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

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

Moss, Samuel

Sullivan, Donal

Yoxall, James Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Norman, Henry

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Joseph Leese and Mr. Slack.

Partington, Oswald

Tomkinson, James

Rea, Russell

Toulmin, George

CLASS. V.
6. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,130,288, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

Diplomatic and Consular Services

303,067

£

2.

British Protectorates in Uganda, etc

420,700

3.

Colonial Services

305,421

4.

Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

52,100

5.

Treasury Chest Fund

49,000

£1,130,288"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 322.)

CLASS VI.
7. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £341,246, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the Year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the fallowing Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—
1656

£

1.

Superannuation and Retired Allowances

339,729

2.

Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions

600

3.

Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

617

4.

Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

300

£341,246"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 323.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Heaton, John Henniker

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Helder, Augustus

Arrol, Sir William

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dickson, Charles Scott

Houston, Robert Paterson

Balcarres, Lord

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Howard, J. (Kidd., Tottenham

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hunt, Rowland

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Duke, Henry Edward

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Bigwood, James

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

Kennedy, I. J. (Westmeath,N.)

Bingham, Lord

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Keswick, William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fisher, William Hayes

Kimber, Sir Henry

Boulnois, Edmund

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Knowles, Sir Lees

Bousfield, William Robert

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Brassey, Albert

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Forster, Henry William

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bull, William James

Galloway, William Johnson

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Butcher, John George

Gardner, Ernest

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Llewellyn, Evan Harry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

Charrington, Spencer

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Lowe, Francis William

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gretton, John

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Macdona, John Cumming

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Haslett, Sir James Horner

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Macorochie, A. W.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stroyan, John

Malcolm, Ian

Pretyman, Ernest George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Purvis, Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Pym, C. Guy

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Randles, John S.

Tuft, Charles

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Ratcliff, R. F.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Morpeth, Viscount

Reid, James (Greenock)

Valentia, Viscount

Morrell, George Herbert

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walker, Col. William Hall

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Renwick, George

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Mount, William Arthur

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Webb, Colonel William George

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Myers, William Henry

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Nicholson, William Graham

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wylie, Alexander

O'Neill, Hon. Herbert Torrens

Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sharpe, William Edward T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Percy, Earl

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Pierpoint, Robert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Spear, John Ward

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fuller, J. M. F.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bell, Richard

Grant, Corrie

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Benn, John Williams

Griffith, Ellis J.

Robson, William Snowdon

Boland, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Runciman, Walter

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Harwood, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Helme, Norval Watson

Shackelton, David James

Broadhurst, Henry

Higham, John Sharpe

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

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

Slack, John Bamford

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Holland, Sir William Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Sullivan, Donal

Causton, Richard Knight

Jacoby, James Alfred

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Tomkinson, James

Cremer, Williaim Randal

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Toulmin, George

Crooks, William

Langley, Batty

Tully, Jasper

Dalziel, James Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Wallace, Robert

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Delany, William

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thamas

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

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

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Yoxall. James Henry

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Norman, Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Luke White and Mr. Lyell.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Rea, Russell

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Rigg, Richard

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Myers, William Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Newegate, Francis A. N.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Arrol, Sir William

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Grenfell, William Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gretton, John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balcarres, Lord

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Hall, Edward Marshall

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Pierpoint, Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bigwood, James

Heaton, John Henniker

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bingham, Lord

Helder, Augustus

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Purvis, Robert

Bond, Edward

Hope J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pym, C. Guy

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Randles, John S.

Boulnois, Edmund

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bousfield, William Robert

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Brassey, Albert

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hunt, Rowland

Renwick, George

Butcher, John George

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

Keswick, William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Charrington, Spencer

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Knowles, Sir Lees

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Sharpe William Edward T.

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.

Spear, John Ward

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stroyan, John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cust, Henry John C.

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lowe, Francis William

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tuff, Charles

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Macdona, John Cumming

Walker, Col. William Hall

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Maconochic, A. W.

Webb, Colonel William George

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Malcolm, Ian

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Fishier, William Hayes

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wylie, Alexander

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Galloway, William Johnson

Mount, William Arthur

Gardner, Ernest

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Boland, John

Bright, Allan Heywood

Atherley- Jones, L.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Broadhurst, Henry

Benn, John Williams

Brigg, John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

1658

1659

Buxton, Sydney Charles

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Caldwell, James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Causton, Richard Knight

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cawley, Frederick

Jacoby, James Alfred

Slack, John Bamford

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones Davin Brynmor (Swansea

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cremer, William Randal

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Langley, Batty

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Tomkinson, James

Doogan, P. G.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Toulmin, George

Dunn, Sir William

Levy, Maurice

Tully, Jasper

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Ure, Alexander

Emmott, Alfred

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Lyell, Charles Henry

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Weir, James Galloway

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moss, Samuel

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grant, Corrie

Partington, Oswald

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rea, Russell

Yoxall, James Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Rigg, Richard

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Walton and Mr. Bell.

Harwood, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Robson, William Snowdon

Higham, John Sharpe

Runciman, Walter

CLASS VII.
8. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £63,497, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz:—

£

1.

Temporary Commissions

25,000

2.

Miscellaneous Expenses

5,098

£

3.

Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

5,642

4.

St. Louis Exhibition, 1901

10,000

5.

Ireland Development Grant

1,000

6.

Repayment to Civil Contingencies Fund

16,757

£63,497"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 324.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Arrol, Sir William

Charrington, Spencer

Fisher, William Hayes

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Glare, Octavius Leigh

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Flower, Sir Ernest

Balcarres, Lord

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Forster, Henry William

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Galloway, William Johnson

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gardner, Ernest

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Bigwood, James

Cust, Henry, John C.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Bingham, Lord

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Davenport, William Bromley-

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Bond, Edward

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dickson, Charles Scott

Grenfell, William Henry

Boulnois, Edmund

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Gretton, John

Bousfield, William Robert

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Brassey, Albert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hall, Edward Marshall

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hamilton Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Butcher, John George

Duke, Henry Edward

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Heaton, John Henniker

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Helder, Augustus

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Morrell, George Herbert

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Mount, William Arthur

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hunt, Rowland

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Myers, William Henry

Spear, John Ward

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Stroyan, John

Keswick, William

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Knowles, Sir Lees

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Thornton, Percy M.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Tuff, Charles

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Percy, Earl

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pierpoint, Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Walker, Col. William Hall

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Webb, Colonel William George

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Purvis, Robert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lowe, Francis William

Pym, C. Guy

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Randles, John S.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Wylie, Alexander

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Macdona, John Cumming

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Renwick, George

Maconochie, A. W.

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Malcolm, Ian

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Robson, William Snowdon

Benn, John Williams

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Runciman, Walter

Boland, John

Harwood, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Helme, Norval Watson

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brigg, John

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

Bright, Allan Heywood

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Broadhurst, Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Slack, John Bamford

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sullivan, Donal

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Cawley, Frederick

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Toulmin, George

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Langley, Batty

Tully, Jasper

Cremer, William Randal

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Ure, Alexander

Dalziel, James Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Wallace, Robert

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen

Levy, Maurice

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Delany, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dunn, Sir William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, T. H. (Halifax)

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Partington, Oswald

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Tomkinson and Mr. Layland-Barratt.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Rigg, Richard

Grant, Corrie

Roberts John Bryn (Eifion)

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
9. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,690,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

£

5.

Educational Services

154,000

12.

Admiralty Office

327,400

£

14.

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

1,208,800

£1,690,200"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 325.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Emmott, Alfred

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Forster, Henry William

Macdona, John Cumming

Balcarres, Lord

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Galloway, William Johnson

Maconochie, A. W.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Gardner, Ernest

A'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool),

Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

Gordon, Hn J E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Malcolm, Ian

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F

Benn, John Williams

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bigwood, James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Bingham, Lord

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Grenfell, William Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gretton, John

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Boulnois, Edmund

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mount, William Arthur

Brassey, Albert

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Butcher, John George

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Caldwell, James

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Myers, William Henry

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Nicholson, William Graham

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Heaton, John Henniker

Norman, Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Helder, Augustus

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

Reline, Norval Watson

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Charrington, Spencer

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightgide

Percy, Earl

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pierpoint, Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hunt, Rowland

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Purvis, Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Pym, C. Guy

Cust, Henry John C.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Randles, John S.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Keswick, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Knowles, Sir Lees

Rigg, Richard

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Doxford, Sir W. Theodore

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Duke, Henry Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Runciman, Walter

Elibank, Master of

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgar, E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tuff, Charles

Wylie, Alexander

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Valentia, Viscount

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

Walker, Col. William Hall

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Spear, John Ward

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Webb, Col. William George

Stroyan, John

Weir, James Galloway

NOES.

Boland, John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Tones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Slack, John Bamford

Bright, Allan Heywood

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Sullivan, Donal

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Langley, Batty

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Cawley, Frederick

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Tomkinson, James

Delany, William

Levy, Maurice

Toulmin, George

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Tully, Jasper

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ffrench, Peter

Moss, Samuel

White, Duke (York, E. R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Nannetti. Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

Partingdon, Oswald

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Henry J. Wilson and Mr. Cremer.

Higham, John Sharpe

Robson, William Snowdon

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
10. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,984,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will conic, in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), viz.:—

£

2.

Medical Establishment. Pay, etc.

484,000

3.

Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc.

817,000

4.

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

468,000

5.

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

1,220,000

6.

Transports and Remounts

1,519,000

7.

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

4,582,000

8.

Clothing Establishments and Services

1,156,000

£

10.

Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services

1,918,000

11.

Establishments for Military Education

146,000

12.

Miscellaneous Effective Services

73,000

14.

Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

1,666,000

15.

Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

1,676,000

16.

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

189,000

Army (Ordnance Factories)

70,000

£15,984,000

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 326.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Arkwright, John. Stanhope

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bathurst, Hon

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Balcarres, Lord

Bhownaggree,

Arrol, Sir William

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Bigwood, Jame.

Bingham, Lord

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hay, Hon. Clande George

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Bond, Edward

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Percy, Earl

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heaton, John Henniker

Pierpoint, Robert

Boulnois, Edmund

Helder, Augustus

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brassey, Albert

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Butcher, John George

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Purvis, Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Pym, C. Guy

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Randles, John S.

Charrington, Spencer

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Ratcliff, R. F.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

Remnant, James Farquharson

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. (Denbigh)

Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge)

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Keswick, William

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kimber, Sir Henry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Knowles, Sir Lees

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cust, Henry John C.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dalkeith, Earl of

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Davenport, William Bromley-

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Spear, John Ward

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Durning, Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stroyan, John.

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Maconochie, A. W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Malcolm, Ian

Tuff, Charles

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Flower, Sir Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Valentia, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Galloway, William Johnson

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Gardner, Ernest

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Webb, Col. William George

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Mount, William Arthur

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wylie, Alexander

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Grenfell, William Henry

Myers, William Henry

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Gretton, John

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nicholson, William Graham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Hall, Edward Marshall

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Parker, Sir Gilbert

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cawley, Frederick

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bell, Richard

Cremer, William Randal

Fuller, J. M. F.

Benn, John Williams

Dalziel, James Henry

Grant, Corrie

Boland, John

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Delany, William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Brigg, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Bright, Allan Heywood

Doogan, P. C.

Reline, Norval Watson

Broadhurst, Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Elibank, Master of

Horniman, Frederick John

Caldwell, James

Emmott, Alfred

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Jacoby, James Alfred

Causton, Richard Knight

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

1668

1669

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Russell

Tomkinson, James

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Rigg, Richard

Toulmin, George

Langley, Batty

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Tully, Jasper

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ure, Alexander

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robson, William Snowdon

Wallace, Robert

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Runciman, Walter

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Levy, Maurice

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Weir, James Galloway

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Lough, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shipman Dr. John G.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Slack, John Bamford

Whittaker Thomas Palmer

W'Kenna, Reginald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Moss, Samuel

Spencer, Rt Hn. C R (Northants.)

Nannetti, Joseph J.

Sullivan, Donal

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Warner and Mr. Higham.

Norman, Henry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
11. Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £536,420, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the
following Service included in the Estimates for Revenue Department, viz.:—

£

Post Office Packet Service

536,420

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 327.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Keswick, William

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Duke, Henry Edward

Kimber, Sir Henry

Arrol, Sir William

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Knowles, Sir Lees

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Elibank, Master of

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Balcarres, Lord

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Fisher, William Hayes

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Flower, Sir Ernest

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Forster, Henry William

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

Bigwood, James

Galloway, William Johnson

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bingham, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Bond, Edward

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Boulnois, Edmund

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Macdona, John Cumming

Brassey, Albert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Maconochie, A. W.

Butcher, John George

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Grenfell, William Henry

Malcolm, Ian

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Gretton, John

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A. (Worc.

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Charrington, Spencer

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morrell, George Herbert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Mount, William Arthur

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Myers, William Henry

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Cust, Henry John C.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Nicholson, William Graham

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hunt, Rowland

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Dickson, Charles Scott

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Percy, Earl

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Tuff, Charles

Pierpoint, Robert

Runciman, Walter

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Walker, Col. William Hall

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Webb, Colonel William George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Purvis, Robert

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pym, C. Guy

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Randles, John S.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Wylie, Alexander

Reid, James (Greenock)

Spear, John Ward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Stroyan, John

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Thornton, Percy M.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Griffith, Ellis J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Harcourt, Lewis V (Rossendale)

Shackleton, David James

Bell, Richard

Heinle, Norval Watson

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Benn, John Williams

Higham, John Sharpe

Slack, John Bamford

Boland, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Horniman, Frederick John

Spencer, Rt Hn. R. (Northants

Brigg, John

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Sullivan, Donal

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E

Broadhurst, Henry

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Langley, Batty

Tomkinson, James

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington)

Tully, Jasper

Causton, Richard Knight

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ure, Alexander

Cawley, Frederick

Levy, Maurice

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Cremer, William Randal

Lloyd-George, David

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lyell, Charles Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Norman, Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Partington.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Rigg, Richard

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Grant, Corrie

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Resolutions to he reported to-morrow.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE 1902–3.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1903, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz:—
(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £388,335 5s. 7d., as shown in column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £437,337 3s. 0d., as shown in column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £49,001 17s. 5d.
(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the sum of £4,598 15s. 4d., as shown in column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule, while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £207,119 8s. 0d., as shown in column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule, so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £202,520 12s. 8d.
(c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—
1. Resolved, that the application of such sums be sanctioned.

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1902–1903. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as Compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, etc. of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

119,682

16

6

…

…

6,668

4

6

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

12,203

12

7

…

…

13,090

4

0

3

Medical Establishments and Services

…

4,575

15

0

1,083

0

6

4

Martial Law

437

17

5

…

45

8

7

5

Educational Services

…

4,805

11

7

…

131

18

4

6

Scientific Services

…

1,215

7

8

…

2,004

3

1

7

Royal Naval Reserves

…

22,764

2

1

35

6

5

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.

Sec. 1

Personnel

188,522

13

7

…

…

1,210

7

8

Sec. 2

Materiel

…

243,960

11

7

…

132,921

4

11

Sec. 3

Contract Work

…

53,937

6

11

…

9,912

7

1

9

Naval Armaments

…

66,440

15

5

…

37,807

9

7

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

…

39,183

12

10

3,357

14

6

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

45,859

17

4

…

…

1,183

10

4

12

Admiralty Office

4,454

14

0

…

…

10

8

1

13

half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

…

454

19

11

…

745

8

0

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

6,584

9

8

…

…

1,434

2

5

15

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

3,639

14

5

…

77

5

4

Amount written off as irrecoverable

6,949

10

1

388,335

5

7

437,337

3

0

4,598

15

4

207,119

8

0

Net Surplus, £49,001 17 5

Net Surplus, £202,520 12 8

Surplus surrendereed to the Exchequer

£251,522

10

1

Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1903, and

£.

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

617,270

4

0

Total Deficits

365,747

13

11

Net Surplus

£251,522

10

1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz:—
(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £2,235,435 4s. 2d. as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £2,266,558 17s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £31,123 13s. 261.;
(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £523,014 8s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £938,463 11s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual

Schedule.

Number of Vote

Army Services, 1902–1903. Votes.

Cross Expenditure.

Appropriations-in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

…

1,028,191

3

0

…

7,958

15

7

2

Medical Establishments: Pay, etc.

…

31,748

10

7

…

10,727

19

10

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc.

324,011

2

9

…

612

7

11

4

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

…

248,246

2

10

…

73

1

2

5

Volunteer Coups: Pay and Allowances

23,391

15

2

…

1,672

1

3

6

Transport and Remounts

624,534

10

4

…

246,678

7

6

7

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

…

359,562

0

7

67,354

14

9

8

Clothing Establislonents, and Services

…

402,078

19

10

…

207,828

6

10

9

Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

…

182,606

9

3

27,700

12

3

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including staff for Engineer Services

670,280

2

6

…

…

185,595

14

1

11

Establishments for Military Education

4,591

15

2

…

…

5,321

7

7

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

291,872

9

5

…

…

519,286

5

5

13

War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

34,424

0

10

…

120

0

4

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

253,696

5

1

…

68,069

3

9

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

…

12,532

1

6

112,464

17

1

16

Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

…

1,593

9

9

14

5

0

Balances irrecoverable

8,633

2

11

2,235,435

4

2

2,266,558

17

4

523,014

8

7

938,463

11

9

Net Surplus, £31,123 13 2.

Net Surplus, £415,449 3 2.

Surplus surrendereed to the Exchequer

£446,572

16

4

receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £415,449 3s. 2d.;
(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

2,613,688

15

8

Total Deficits

2,167,115

19

4

Net Surplus

£446,572

16

4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge as Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriation in Aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. Resolved, that the application of such sums be sanctioned.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid there were certain items to which he desired to call attention, and especially an item of £279,000 partly for China and partly for Somaliland. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] It might become hon. Members opposite to take no notice of expenditure, but on the Opposition side of the House they intended to look into the details of all this kind of expenditure which he agreed had already been passed, but which they had to examine with an eve to the future in order that the deficiences of the past might be noticed. The surplus which by this Resolution it was proposed to apply to the reduction of debt was £446,572, hut really the sum dealt with under this Resolution was larger than that, because it consisted of surpluses amounting to £2,613,688 and deficits representing £2,167,115, which had been transferred from various Votes to meet the exigencies of the War Office during the period of the war. These transferences from one Vote to another amounted to 6 per cent. of the total expenditure of £79,000,000, and that was a large percentage for which some explanation should be given. All these transferences had been made subject to the consent of the Treasury, but it was clear from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee that that sanction had not always been obtained in the past! There were one or two things which he wished to point out to the Committee. There had been a large saving under the new Militia Reserve of £150,000, and this money was only saved in consequence of the failure of the proposals of the Secretary for India, which were not brought to a satisfactory conclusion. In the same way on the Yeomanry Vote a considerable sum of money had been saved because a number of men whom the Secretary of State hoped to enlist had failed to come up to his expectations. Then there was the item of £279,000 for expenses in China and Somaliland. He wished to know the proportions in which this amount was divided. Another item—of about £500,000—was for expenditure on buildings in South Africa, and he would like to know upon what buildings the money had been expended. He wished to know what buildings they were. He understood that ther was going to he a reduction in the garrison of South
1678
Africa, and he wished to know exactly upon what buildings all this money had been spent. It could not have been spent upon barracks, because if there was to be no permanent garrison permanent barracks would not be required. The money might have been spent upon hut-merits. He noticed that in the current year £3,500,000 had been spent out of capital, and he wished to know exactly upon what class of building this money had been spent. They had a large Vote for barracks in this country, and surely out of that Vote sufficient money might have been found to build what barracks were required in South Africa.
He now came to an important point which concerned the Secretary for India. If hon. Members would look on page 2 of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee they would see there that the Secretary for War had sanctioned a payment to General Knox and his aide-de-camp of full allowances for periods extending from the 30th of October, 1902, to the 1st of January, 1903. At the time when the Secretary of State for India sanctioned these allowances to these two officers two other officers were actually doing the work for which General Knox and his aide-de-camp were being paid, When this question came up the Treasury refused to sanction the proposals of the Secretary of State, and they did so because there was a regulation which provided that staff pay should only be paid to an officer who was actually discharging the duties of Ins appointment. Neither of these two officers were actually discharging the duties for which they were being paid, because there were two other officers doing their work. The right hon. Gentleman thereupon used part of the £5,000 which, in accordance with the recommendation of the Dawkins Committee, he was allowed to spend on his own responsibility, thus getting outside the ruling of the Treasury and the wording of the pay warrant. Such a proceeding could not be passed over in silence, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory explanation. He did not like to suggest that the Secretary of State had abused his responsibility, but there was a point at which that responsibility should be checked, and this money ought to be

1679
spent only upon those objects for which it was granted.
The hon. Member asked several Questions with regard to remounts. Horses bought in America for $140 were sold two or three days afterwards for $42. The Remount Department at the end of the war lost £10 a head on horses bought in the open market in Hungary at from £12 to £15. Surely those horses in the open market were worth more than £5. There had disappeared 34.000 horses, costing on an average between £35 and £40, and 6,000 mules, costing on an average £25 to £30, and no trace of them could be found. Whether they were killed in action, or lost on the veldt, or disposed of by some crafty contractor was not known. There ought to be a more satisfactory account of their disappearance than the House had got. He hoped that care would be taken in future to see that a new system of accounting in the Army would be adopted, so that if they had again to embark on an enterprise of this magnitude they might have some security that the accounts would be better managed than they were at the present moment.
There was another unsatisfactory thing referred to in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. At page 6 the facts were set out in considerable detail. A large number of stores were got rid of at below the minimum price at which traders were invited to tender. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a trial had taken place in South Africa in which the name of Colonel Morgan, a distinguished officer of the Army Service Corps, was introduced. It was stated that that officer himself profited from sales at prices considerably below the minimum. He understood that the matter was sub judice in this country. He wanted to know whether the War Office were going to wait until that trial was determined before they themselves instituted an independent inquiry with regard to what took place. There was one important point which, he thought, the Secretary of State for India would be delighted to clear up. The Committee said in their Report that they had learned that the reserve of ammunition in store was not at a higher standard than it was before the war. He
1680
remembered that the right hon. Gentleman was very curious on a former occasion as to the amount of ammunition kept in this country. A statement was made by the Prime Minister during the course of the war that there was not more than one box of ammunition in this country. Taking that statement in conjunction with the eagerness of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India on the subject, they might have anticipated a more favourable Report from the Committee. The Report also stated that 50,000,000 rounds of ammunition had been brought back from South Africa in bad condition. He hoped the Committee would hear that some effort had been made, or was being made, to remedy the injury to the country's finances resulting from the abandonment of that damaged ammunition.
MR. MCKENNAsaid that every one who read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee could not fail to come to the conclusion that the late Secretary for War was of a very arbitrary temperament. Again and again the Committee stated that the Regulations had been disobeyed, money had been spent without, authority, and the sanction of the Treasury had not been obtained. In short, the Report from beginning to end was a sustained condemnation of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India when he was Secretary for War. It had always been a mystery how the millions spent on the Army during that war had been got rid of; but now that mystery was explained in this Report. Stores had been obtained, and no account had been given of them; and in some cases, so far as the re-sale of stores was concerned, one could not avoid the belief that somebody was not acting in good faith. Take, for instance, the tobacco sent out to South Africa. 580,000 lbs. were disposed of on sale at 2d. per lb, while the price paid for it was 9½d. per 1b. It was not because the tobacco was in bad condition, because 980,000 lbs of tobacco were sold to Tommy Atkins at such a price as to recoup the loss on the other sale. In dealing with such a subject as tobacco, one would like to know why such a high price as 9½d. per lb. was paid for it? The ordinary price was only 5d. or 6d. per lb., and this

1681
tobacco must have been of very exceptional quality. Then it appeared that the Committee called attention to the quality of the oats which were re-sold at a loss of 1s. 6d. per quarter; although compensation had been given to certain contractors at the rate of 6s. 10d. per quarter. All these facts showed that there was no proper control over the expenditure of the Army. It was true that these accounts had now been passed by the Public Accounts Committee, but this Committee had a right to ask that there should be at least some pretence of businesslike conduct in the management of Army expenditure. At present there was no such pretence, and until the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee some satisfactory explanation in regard to some of these details, they ought not to sanction the surplus expenditure now proposed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that the hon. Gentleman's observations were devoted to the accounts for the war period.
MR. MCKENNA: No; after the war as well.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that the whole point of the hon. Gentleman's observations were directed, as he understood, to the war period. It should be remembered that enormous supplies had, of course, to be ordered during that period. The War Office were obliged to order stores months in advance for 250,000 troops. As to the remounts, the orders were given on the opinion of the people on the spot. The only question was whether they should sell the horses on the spot, that was to say, at the places where they were in South Africa, and incur a loss, or ship the horses to this country at a large cost for transport and then find that the horses would be sold probably at a greater loss. In regard to other articles, such as tobacco, the military authorities were, of course, responsible, but he did not believe that they could have done other than they did. He could, of course, if the Committee desired it, enter into the various details. The Public Accounts Committee I were, however, bound to take notice of any deviations; but it was impossible to
1682
conduct a great war without deviations. As to the 614 horses for the Yeomanry, they were bound to dispose of them at the termination of the war. The only other alternative was to take them over, and that would have necessitated the acquisition of a large amount of stabling accommodation, after which the horses might have been handed over to the Yeomanry in consideration of a certain payment. That would have meant trying, for the first time, a system of Government horses, which would be available for I Government service at certain periods of the year. The accounts did not indicate any lack of capacity or any mismanagement on the part of the War Office; and he thought that the Department deserved a little more credit for its work during the two and a half years the war was being waged than hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to extend to it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they could not criticise too closely the expenditure on a great war. They could not expect to have a perfect system under such circumstances of emergency; but that was not the point. The point was that a gross breach of the Regulations had been committed by the Department. The right hon. Gentleman had still to meet charges, brought very largely against him personally and against the Department, of gross breaches of the Regulations and unconstitutional practices. He had ignored absolutely what was done with regard to the military railways. There was an expenditure of £1,250,000 incurred without the authority of Parliament. Money was spent in 1902 in respect of the war, not merely without the sanction of Parliament, but without the sanction of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman did not ask the sanction of the Treasury, and, although Parliament sat until December, he made no attempt to obtain a Supplementary Estimate. Not until March, 1904, after the money had been spent, did Parliament hear anything about it. That was grossly unconstitutional procedure. As to the decentralisation and Army Corps accounts the action revealed by the Report constituted one of the grossest things of the kind that he had seen. The Army Regulations prescribed that a man should not draw

1683
pay except in respect of duties he was actually discharging. The officers concerned were promoted from one appointment to another; they certainly could not discharge the duties of both. The Treasury disallowed the payment, but the right hon. Gentleman, in defiance both of the Treasury and of the Regulations, appropriated the money out of the fund given for a totally different purpose. The right hon. Gentlemen was "a defaulting authority," and if he had been a Welsh county council a coercion Bill would have been introduced forthwith. Some defence ought really to be given of this extraordinary proceeding. The incident indicated the way in which the spending Departments treated the Treasury. There was no real supervision over the expenditure of any of the Departments. The surpluses themselves ought to have been enormously greater. The stores were sold under conditions which practically forced the Government to accept any price that was offered. The money of the taxpayer had been squandered without any proper scrutiny, and no defence whatever was forth-coming.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcomplained of the discussion of so important a question having to be taken at one o'clock in the morning, but it was nevertheless the duty of the Committee carefully to consider the matter. There was considerable force in the plea of the right hon. Gentleman that under the pressure of war irregularities were certain to occur, but when in the year after the war there was an actual mistake on the two sides of £4,750,000 in the Army Estimates and Accounts, it was necessary that attention should be drawn to the fact. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation was right satisfactory. There were many points deserving of severe condemnation. On the question of waste arid extravagance the right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed to meet the points raised by the hen. Member for Bristol with regard to the disappearance of 40,000 horses and mules and the re-sale of Hungarian horses at a loss of £10 apiece. But the more serious matter was the personal action of the Secretary of State in regard to Sir C. Knox and the Imperial Railways.
1684
According to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury objected to certain proposed payments to Sir C. Knox and another officer, but the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless proceeded to make the payments out of funds never intended for the purpose. That was a most irregular proceeding which not even the pressure of war, had it existed, could have justified. As to Imperial Railways, £1,250,000 was paid without any sanction whatever, and, as had appeared from recent discussions, £900,000 of that money was practically lost.
MR. BRODRICKpointed out that in the discussion referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a most elaborate explanation of the transaction, and had taken upon the Treasury the whole responsibility.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that as a matter of fact five different explanations had been given and they now had a sixth. But the deed was done, and they could only hope that what had transpired would be taken to heart by the War Office. If the Secretary of State for War would apply his mind to these somewhat minor matters instead of to extensive Army schemes, there might be in future some remedy for what he could only describe as a disgraceful state of things.
*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT,)said the hon. Member had done his right hon. friend an injustice in charging him with the responsibility for the payment of the salaries of Sir C. Knox and the other officers in question, If any one was primarily responsible for that it was he himself.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he went by the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, page 2.
*MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that shortly after he went to the War office he found that Sir C. Knox had been in receipt of pay which the Treasury had disallowed. The question was not whether or not the War Office proposed to give Sir C. Knox certain pay, but whether

1685
or not Sir C. Knox should be called upon to refund money which had been paid to him as salary in connection with the post to which he had been appointed. Whether or not the appointment was wrongly made, he thought it would be extremely unjust upon Sir C. Knox to require the repayment, and he represented this view to the Treasury, who, however, remained obdurate. He then asked the Treasury, in the name of his right hon. friend, whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they would allow the money to be paid out of the £5,000 allowed to the Secretary of State. The reply was that the £5,000 was granted to the Secretary of State for any expenditure he thought fit to incur, and from that he took it that they raised no objection. After having been paid this money it would be extremely unfair to call upon him to refund it. With regard to the £5,000 which had been referred to, it had been most jealously and carefully administered. Every single payment out of that sum came under his own personal observation, and the Committee might rest assured that he would not allow a single penny of that money to be expended unless he was perfectly certain it was being expended under the conditions laid down by the Treasury and in such a way as the Public Accounts Committee would have no reason to complain of.
With reference to the Imperial military railways he wished to point out that there was no necessity for obtaining either the sanction of Parliament or the Treasury so long as the money was being expended as a war charge for transport, and the other necessities of military operations in South Africa. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already informed the House that he regarded the delay in tanning to Parliament for sanction as a bad precedent which ought not to be repeated, and he should have thought that that statement would have ended the matter. He could not add anything more to what had already been said upon this point by his right hon. friend. The hon. Member for Bristol had stated that now for the first time the Comptroller and Auditor-General had obtained the consent of the Treasury for all the expenditure contained in the Appropriation Account,
1686
but it was not so. What the Public Accounts Committee's Report stated was "That the Auditor-General, in accordance with the wish of your Committee, declares that no part of the expenditure in these Apropriation Accounts has been incurred without the authority of Parliament." The hon. Member opposite had asked what class of buildings this money had been spent upon in South Africa. The money had been spent mainly upon hut accommodation and bungalows for married officers. With regard to remounts, this again was a loss consequent upon the war. When the war came suddenly to an end they had to sell the horses for what they would fetch. This necessarily involved very heavy loss. The hon. Member referred to them as having possibly been lost on the veldt. They were not lost at all. There were 174 units in South Africa, chiefly Irregulars, who failed to give any account at all of their animals. It was most desirable that in future better supervision should he kept over these matters, and that arrangements should be made for accountants accompanying the troops when on service. That matter was engaging the attention of his right hon. friend, and he was sure that provision would be made for it.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the double payment referred to in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee was all due to the tremendous haste of the Secretary of State for India to get his Army Corps scheme adopted and to his having appointed men and paid their salaries when they had no duties to perform. That scheme had now been entirely swept away by his successor at the War Office. A question which had never been answered was whether the Treasury refused to sanction the appointments at the time they were made in October, 1902, for, of course, that was the point on which the whole thing turned. This was a somewhat serious matter, because the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was signed by supporters of the Government, stated that the Committee agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor-General that this was an abnormal and unusual payment. His hon. friend the Member for East Bristol was justified in

1687
bringing this to the notice of the House. Another matter on which the Committee should get some information was the immense amount of money which had been paid to the Chartered Company and of which very little had been accounted for. There was a sum of £1,728,000 which had been so raid, and the Report stated that there had been continual complaints that no vouchers had been forthcoming for a very large proportion of the payments. He was very glad that the Public Accounts Committee spoke very strongly against the handing over of large sums of money to commercial companie like this, or to outside bodies of any kind whatever. As showing the way business was carried on he might mention that there was a cargo of 999 mules shipped to Beira and of these 158 died on the voyage, while the remaining 841 could not be traced. A contract for oats was entered into by the War Office and afterwards cancelled, and the contractors received compensation at the rate of 6s. 10½d. per quarter though at the time the order was cancelled a quantity of oats which had already been delivered was resold at a loss of only 1s. 6d. per quarter. Surely it would have been better to have allowed the contract to be fulfilled, and then to resell the oats.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he wished to say a few words on a subject which had not been touched upon. The first Report of the Committee dealt specially with this Vote, and, therefore, he had no hesitation in submitting a quotation from it. The Report referred to the practice of transferring the savings on one Vote to meet the deficiencies on another, thereby, in many cases, going behind Parliament, and setting up new services which Parliament had never sanctioned. The Report contained the following:—
"Your Committee feel that they must call attention to the constant practice of obtaining Treasury Authority for the application of Savings under one Vote to meet the deficiency on another and a totally different Service. In the case of Civil Service Votes, this can only be done to the extent of applying the Savings under one sub-head of a Vote to meet the deficiency under another sub-head, and there is nothing unconstitutional in this practice, as the formal vote of the House of Commons
1688
applies only to the total amount of each Estimate, though we are of opinion that even here the Treasury should exercise care that the money is not spent in any way which seriously differs from the details presented to Parliament. But the case of the Navy and Army Votes is very different. Here the Departments may, with the consent of the Treasury, spend in a manner entirely at variance with the grants as voted by the House of Commons, and they may even start a new Service not contemplated when the Votes were passed. This practice appears to us to be growing, and we think that the attention of the House of Commons should be called to it as seriously affecting the control of Parliament over the public expenditure. During the years 1902–3, savings amounting to about £568,000 have been applied to meet deficiencies reaching the aggregate sum of £345,000. In 1901–2, the savings were £230,000, and the deficiencies £142,000; and in 1900–1, these amounts were respectively £276,000 and £265,000."
The Committee proceeded to point out that in 1901 the amount so dealt with was £541,000; in the following year. £374,000; and in the year under review, £913 000. This was not so much a grievance on the part of the Treasury as on the part of the House of Commons. The Public Accounts Committee had had this matter before them for many years, but they had never made such pointed reference to it as they had done in this Report. The Public Accounts Committee said that this practice had
gone much too far. Without discussing this point any further he asked that this question should receive the very serious attention of the Government and that in future years some regard should be had to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
Resolutions to be reported this day.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That towards making goad the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, the sum of £73,083,164, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. MCKENNAsaid he might take this opportunity of asking the First Lord of the Treasury how far he meant to go with business at that time of the morning?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,)said it was all a question of balance of convenience. He understood that no length of time would be occupied in discussing the Eleventh Order, Education (Local Authority Default) Bill. He did not propose to take the Committee on the Cunard Agreement Bill. He hoped there would be no difficulty on the score of the Indian Councils Bill and there were several other measures of minor importance which he thought the House might agree to.
*MR. MACVEAGHsaid he hoped the First Lord would not take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. They had had a Coercion Act in Ireland since 1881 with subsequent amending Acts, and year after year they were continued in force by being smuggled through the House under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at three o'clock in the morning. The Irish Members thought that if this Bill was to be passed they should have
an opportunity of entering their protest at a time when they could fairly discuss and when the House could understand the Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the hon. Member would remember that, however objectionable these Acts seemed to him, and in some respects to others, the Government were only following the universal practice in including them in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked if the Government intended to take Order No. 13 that night.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that it was not proposed to take that Order; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would facilitate the passage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give facilities for the Criminal Aliens Bill.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126, Noes, 33. (Division List No. 328.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hunt, Rowland

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Keswick, William

Arrol, Sir William

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Knowles, Sir Lees

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

Balcarres, Lord

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

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

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bingham, Lord

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brassey, Albert

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Butcher, John George

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Maconochie, A. W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Malcolm, Ian

Chamberlain Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Grenfell, William Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Gretton, John

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Morpeth, Viscount

Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Rt, Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Myers, William Henry

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Nicholson, William Graham

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Tuff, Charles

Parkes, Ebenezer

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Valentia, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Percy, Earl

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Webb, Colonel William George

Pierpoint, Robert

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Spear, John Ward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Randles, John S.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Thornton, Percy M.

NOES.

Brigg, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Toulmin, George

Caldwell, James

Kilbride, Denis

Tully, Jasper

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

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

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

Grant, Corrie

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Boland.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Helme, Norval Watson

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

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

Sullivan, Donal

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. MCKENNAasked the Secretary of State for India if he would explain the purpose of the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)was understood to explain that the Indian Government had a right to appoint by statute an additional member of the Indian Council. At present the work had to be done by five members, but the
  1692
  duties had so increased that they were, absolutely beyond the compass of the existing members. One had broken down seriously in health, and had had to return to England. This Bill simply enabled the Government so to divide the duties that they could be properly discharged and the present members relieved.
  MR. J. H. LEWISexpressed his doubts whether the salary of an additional member was justified. India was an extremely poor country; and she was overburdened with enormous salaries, many of which might with great advantage be considerably cut down.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked why, if there was such a pressure of business in India, advantage had not been taken of the services of a member of the Indian Council who some time ago was sent to act as Under-Secretary for Ireland.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
Clause 1—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill,"
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved to report Progress in order to ascertain how far it was intended to proceed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,)hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. A period of the session had now been reached when every Leader of the House was obliged to ask Members to make sacrifices in order to carry annual Bills which it was necessary to pass, within which category the Bill under discussion came. Under these circumstances he ought not to be asked to postpone the Bill night after night, especially as it raised no new questions of principle.
MR. MACVEAGHprotested against the Bill being proceeded with, inasmuch as it was not mentioned in the list of measures which the right hon. Gentleman had announced his intention of taking, and a number of Nationalist Members had consequently left the House under the impression that the Bill would not come on. He suggested that the Bill should be taken at an hour when it might be reasonably discussed.
MR. DELANYjoined in the appeal which had been made. Among the measures included in the schedule was a Coercion Act for Ireland, the most peaceful portion of the United Kingdom, and it would be
1694
the duty of the Nationalist Members to offer to the Bill their strongest opposition.
MR. MCKENNAagreed that sacrifices must be made to get through the necessary Parliamentary business; the question was simply as to the form those sacrifices should take. Should they sit until four or five o'clock, going through the Bill clause by clause; or should they meet on Monday or Tuesday next week? Personally, he did not mind which they did, but for the sake of the House generally he thought it would be wiser and probably in the interests of business to proceed, not with this Bill, but with others of a non-contentious character.
MR. BOLANDsupported the Motion. The measure in which Nationalist Members were particularly interested stood 25th on the list, but they would probably have a good deal to say before that item was reached.
MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that this Bill was included in the list of measures with which he had said he intended to proceed that night, and he thought hon. Members were rather unreasonable in pressing the Motion to report Progress.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that two alternative sacrifices had been mentioned, but there was a third, viz: the sacrifice of sonic of the fifty-two Orders still on the Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman would state definitely which were to be proceeded with it might tend to shorten proceedings.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked whether the Bishoprics Bill was to be proceeded with.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not to-night.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he meant during the session, because that would have some effect upon the manner in which the discussion was conducted.
Question put.
Clause 1.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he had an Amendment to move in regard to Clause 1.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 329.)

AYES.

Boland, John

Hubhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Sullivan, Donal

Brigg, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Toulmin, George

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Tully, Jasper

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Delany, William

Lewis, John Herbert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Doogan, P. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, aster of

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. William M'Arthur and Mr. Causton.

Grant, Corrie

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

Helme, Norval Watson

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Arkwright John Stanhope

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Percy, Earl

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pierpoint, Robert

Arrol, Sir William

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Grenfell, William Henry

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gretton, John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balcarres, Lord

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Helder, Augustus

Randles, John S.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bingham, Lord

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Remnant, James Farquharson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Brassey, Albert

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Keswick, William

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Butcher, John George

Knowles, Sir Lees

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Spear, John Ward

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Thornton, Percy M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Macdona, John Cumming

Tuff, Charles

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Maconochie, A. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Dickson, Charles Scott

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Malcolm, Ian

Webb, Colonel William George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrell, George Herbert

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Myers, William Henry

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, William Graham

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he understood that the Deputy-Chairman simply called out "Clause 1."
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only Question before the Committee is that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
MB. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he did not wish to go into all the reasons which might be alleged against this clause. At this late hour of the morning it was impossible for them to examine which Bills in the schedule it was desirable to continue, and which ought to be expunged. Therefore he moved that Clause 1 be struck out.
MR. MACVEAGHthought the Motion of his hon. friend, was an eminently reasonable one. The schedule contained some very goods Bills, but most of them were bad Bills. It was absurd to ask the Committee to legislate upon such subjects as the Ballot Act, the Corrupt Practices Act or the Sunday Closing Act at this late hour of the morning. The bad Bills ought to be dropped out altogether and the good ones made permanent. Nobody would ever dream, for instance, of proposing the repeal of the Ballot Act, and the same argument applied to the Corrupt Practices Act. Then there was the Sand Grouse Protection Act. He was not aware that any of his hon. friends from Ireland were interested in a Bill of that kind.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot enter into a discussion of these points upon the
first clause. That will not be in order until we reach the schedule.
MR. MACVEAGHsaid that without going into particulars he would state that the whole schedule was put together in a slipshod manner. It was twenty-nine years since Mr. Disraeli and the late Lord Salisbury both gave public pledges that the system of re-enacting these Acts from year to year would be abandoned, but no serious effort had been made to carry out those pledges by the Leaders of the House. He ventured to say that the Solicitor-General for Ireland, the Solicitor General for England, or any of the other lawyers in the House had not the slightest idea of what they were voting for. Not one of them could give an intelligent definition of the measures mentioned in the schedule. He suggested that a Committee should be appointed to separate the wheat from the chaff before they gave facilities for the passing of the Bill.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would vote for the Amendment as a protest against taking the discussion of the Bill at this unreasonable hour. The Committee had made good progress, and nobody could say that there had been any undue talking on the proposals which had been brought before the House
Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 35. (Division List No.330.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Forster, Henry William

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Gardner, Ernest

Arrol, Sir William

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

Gordon, Hon J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Balcarres, Lord

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Grenfell, William Henry

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Gretton, John

Bingham, Lord

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Helder, Augustus

Brassey, Albert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Butcher, John George

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

Hunt, Rowland

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Fisher, William Hayes

Keswick, William

Knowles, Sir Lees

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Parkes, Ebenezer

Spear, John Ward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Loiter, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pierpoint, Robert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tuff, Charles

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Valentia Viscount

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Randles, John S.

Webb, Colonel William George

Macdona, John Cumming

Ratcliff, R. F.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Remnant James Farquharson

Wrightson Sir Thomas

Malcolm, Ian

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Morpeth, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Morrell, George Herbert

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

NOES.

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brigg, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Shackleton, David James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sullivan, Donal

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Causton, Richard Knight

Lewis, John Herbert

Tully Jasper

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Whitley, J H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Corrie Grant.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Helme, Norval Watson

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Clause 2—
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 35. (Division List No. 331.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gretton, John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Helder, Augustus

Arrol, Sir William

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hunt, Rowland

Balcarres, Lord

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Knowles, Sir Lees

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bingham Lord

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fisher, William Hayes

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Brassey, Albert

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Butcher, John George

Forster, Henry William

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gardner, Ernest

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

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Malcolm, Ian

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Randles, John S.

Thornton, Percy M.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. N.

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tuff, Charles

Morpeth, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, Viscount

Morrell, George Herbert

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Webb, Colonel William George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Nicholson, William Graham

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Percy, Earl

Sharpe, William Edward T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, and Mr. Ailwyn-Fellowes.

Pierpoint, Robert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Spear, John Ward

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

NOES.

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brigg, John

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Shackleton, David James

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lewis, John Herbert

Toulmin, George

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tully, Jasper

Doogan, P. C.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Grant, Corrie

Norman, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Kilbride and Mr. Ffrench.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rigg, Richard

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
Schedule
MR. HIGHAMsaid he wished, to move the omission Of the first Act, which, he said, contained regulations regarding the flax and linen industry in Ireland which were absurd and inapplicable to the methods of today.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, to leave out lines 6 to 9, inclusive."—(Mr. Higham.)
Question proposed, "That the lines proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
MR. MACVEAGHthought that, in view of the declaration of an hon. Member well acquainted with the linen trade that there was not a single clause of this particular Act to which the slightest attention was now paid, a conclusive case had been made out for the omission of the Act from the schedule. Having himself a fair experience of the Irish line trade, he had come to the conclusion that the Act was obsolete. It was
1702
absolutely ludicrous that the House of Commons should be kept sitting at three o'clock in the morning to re-enact a statute at which everybody in the trade concerned was laughing. The whole of the North of Ireland was defying this Act, and he submitted that it should be either enforced or repealed.
MR. DELANYthought that some explanation ought to be given for the inclusion of an Act passed seventy years ago for a purely temporary purpose. He protested against the time of the House being wasted by the re-enactment of measures of this character.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid the illustration brought forward by the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division justified a close examination of this schedule. The deliberate policy of the particular Act referred to must have been to restrict the Irish linen trade. Five mending Acts had been passed, but no explanation had been given as to the extent to which they affected the principal Act. The schedule contained ninety-one Acts and

1703
it certainly ought not to be passed without any explanation whatever. The provisions of the Linen Manufactures Act were an absolute impossibility. If the measure had been amended an explanation ought to be given. if it had not been amended, it ought to be enforced; if it was not necessary it ought to be repealed.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said that not only had this Act been amended four times, the last occasion being in 1867, but by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1874, all the obsolete and mediaeval clauses were repealed. All the statutes could not be codified year by year, and the Expiring Laws Continuance Act was a convenient method by which to perpetuate those parts of legislation which were still of use. It was really absurd to waste time by discussing provisions which had long since been repealed.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsubmitted that the Act of 1867, so far from repealing, extended the Act of 1835, and enlarged the area of the anomalies to which reference had been made. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke from the point of view of the textile manufacturers; he desired to speak as a lawyer who wished to have the law in such a form that it could be reasonably understood by ordinary people. The Linen Manufactures Act was passed in 1835; it was being continued in the schedule of this Act; four amending Acts had been passed, the last of which was carried in 1867, since when nothing had been done. Therefore a manufacturer who wished to see how the law stood had to get five Acts, to read them together and to consider their bearing one upon another. Surely the Law Officers of the Crown might go through this schedule from year to year and consider which it was necessary to continue, which could be dispensed with, and which might to some extent be codified. This particular Act was of no use, whatever; it was probably originally intended to hamper Irish trade, and therefore there was the best possible reason for getting rid of it. The only result of
1704
such legislation was to create in the minds of students of Parliamentary proceedings an impression of incompetency on the part of the House to deal with the work it had to do. The ordinary theory of the incompetent outsider was that the more statutes there were and the more complicated they were the better it was for the lawyers. He wished to point out that that was rot the case.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the general codification of the law.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he was simply endeavouring to point out how difficult it was for working lawyers, who had to consider laws of this kind, to do justice to their clients.
*THE CHAIRMAN: But that question does not arise here.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that all he wished to say on this point was that lawyers did not desire to have complicated laws.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has repeated this argument several times after I have informed him that he is not in order. I must call the hon. Member's attention to the Standing Order in regard to irrelevancy.
MR. DOOGANappealed to the Prime Minister not to press this Bill further at this late hour. The Bill to which they were objecting was passed in order to crush out the linen industry in Ireland, and it was nothing more nor less than prohibitive legislation. At one time the linen industry was carried on principally by means of hand-looms, and at that period he did not think there was even one large linen house in Belfast. This Bill was ridiculous and absurd, they were breaking this law every day in Ireland, and if they did not break the law they could not compete with other manufacturers and send their linen all over the world. Surely in the interests of the linen trade of Belfast it would be wise to drop this Act. It was an act which was inoperative, useless, and prohibitive to industry, and it was enacted

1705
at a time when the most primitive hand-looms were in use. So much ridicule had been thrown upon this Act that it ought never to have been put in the schedule again. The amending Act had not altered its character. He ventured to assert that there was not a single right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite who had even read this Act through. He trusted that under these circumstances the Prime Minister would not proceed further with the Bill to-night, but allow them to retire to their virtuous beds. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would allow this measure to be withdrawn altogether. The Law Officers of the Crown should look into this Bill with the view to all obsolete Acts being left out.
MR. MACVEAGHsaid he could hardly conceive that the First Lord of the Treasury would ask them to continue this discussion till three or four o'clock in the afternoon. He remembered an occasion not very long ago when the feelings of Members were strongly worked up by this method of dealing with business. He did not wish a similar state of confusion to arise now. He moved to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. MacVeagh.)
MR. HELMEsaid that in the interest of the general business of the House an arrangement should be come to by which this Bill should be held over to another time. He suggested that the House should agree to the following non-contentious Bills being disposed of now: Public Health Bill (Second Reading); Poor Law Authorities (Transfer of Property) Bill (Committee); and Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) (No. 2) Bill (Second Reading).
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not see why they should not come to the arrangement suggested by the hon. Gentleman provided it was thoroughly
1706
understood that the three Bills mentioned should be now disposed of, and that this Bill on another night would only be discussed at reasonable length. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He would offer no opposition to the Motion to report Progress.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
FALSE STATEMENTS (COMPANIES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NAVAL AND MILITARY MEDALS BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
POOR LAW AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY) BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (No. 2) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Four o'clock, a.m.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Carlisle Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; De Trafford Estate Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Aberdeen City Improvements Order Confirmation Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]; Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Leyton Urban District Council Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill; Glasgow and South-Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill; Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

STANDING ORDERS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the object of the Motion standing in my name is to effect some Amendments in the Standing Orders rendered necessary by the transference of a Department from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture. It is also
1490
proposed that hereafter there should be a Standing Order that when under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act a Joint Committee is required it shall always consist of three Member from each House unless the Standing Order is suspended.
Moved, That the Standing Orders be amended as follows—
26. In cases where tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides are to be acacquired or in any way affected a copy of the plans and sections shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the Office of the Harbour Department, Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters," and on such copy all t dal waters shall be coloured blue and, if the plan include any bridge across tidal waters, the dimensions as regards span and headway of the nearest bridges, if any, across the same tidal waters, above and below the proposed new bridge, shall be marked thereon; and in all such cases, such plans and sections shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend, or are to be carried, with their position and extent, or route accurately laid down thereon.
And in cases where the work is to be situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, a copy of the plans and sections, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited—

(1) if the river is in England or Wales, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; or

(2) if the river is in Scotland, at the office of the Secretary for Scotland; or

(3) if the river is in Ireland, at the Irish Office. Westminster, and at the Office of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Dublin; and

(4) If the river is subject to a Board of Conservators, at the Office also of such Board.

30. Where by any Bill power is sought to take any churchyard, burial ground, or cemetery, or any part thereof, or to disturb the bodies interred therein, or

1491
where power is sought to take any common or commonable land, as the case may be, a copy of so much of the plans, sections, and books of reference required by these Orders to be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments in respect of such Bill as relates to such churchyard, burial ground, or cemetery, common or commonable land, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November, be deposited at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and a copy of so much of the said plans, sections, and books of reference as relates to such common or commonable lands shall, on or before the said day, be deposited at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
33. On or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy shall be deposited—
(1) Of every Local Bill at the Office of His Majesty's Treasury, at the Local Government Board, and at the General Post Office;
(4) Of every local Bill relating to any dock, harbour, navigation, pier, port, or tidal waters, at the Office of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters,"
(5.) Of every Bill of the Second Class whereby it is intended to authorise the construction of any work on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the Office of the Conservators of the River (if any);
(7.) Of every Local Bill—

(a) relating to a local court or stipendiary magistrate;

(b) whereby power is sought to take any churchyard, burial ground, cemetery, or any part thereof, or to disturb the bodies interred therein, or to take any common or commonable land;

(c) in which provisions are contained relating to houses inhabited by the working class in London.

(d) promoted by any Municipal or other Local Authority, by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police or sanitary regulations which deviate
1492
from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to the general law;

at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department;
(12.) Of every local Bill which relates to the drainage of land in England or Wales, or which relates to the improvement of land in England, Wales, or Scotland, or to the erection, improvement, repair, maintenance, or regulation of any market or market place at which cattle are exposed for sale, or to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or which proposes to alter the boundary of any county, urban or rural district, parish, or any other administrative area in the United. Kingdom, or whereby power is sought to take any common or commonable land. at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Leave out Standing Order 38 and insert as a new Standing Order—
38. Where any Bill contains or revives or extends power to take compulsorily or by agreement any land in any local area as defined for the purposes of this Order, and such taking involves, or may involve, the taking in of that area of any house or houses occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons of the working class, whether as tenants or lodgers, the promoters shall deposit in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and at the office of the central authority, on or before the 21st day of December, a statement giving the desscription and postal address of each of such houses, its number on the deposited plans, the parish in which it is situate, and the number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons of the working class residing in it, and also a copy of so much of the deposited plans (if any) as relates thereto.
This Order shall not apply where a statement in pursuance of this Order was deposited in respect of the Act, the powers of which are proposed to be revived or extended.
For the purposes of this Order the expression "local area" means—

(1) As respects London, the Administrative County of London;

1493

(2) As respects England and Wales (outside London), any borough, or other urban district, and elsewhere than in a borough or other urban district, any parish;

(3) As respects Scotland, any district within the meaning of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; and

(4) As respects Ireland. any urban district;

The expression "house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.
The expression "working class" means mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons, other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them.
The expression "central authority" means, as regards London, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, as regards England and Wales (outside London), the Local Government Board, as regards Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland, and as regards Ireland, the Local Government Board for Ireland.
The expression "Bill" includes a Bill confirming a Provisional Order.
77. The Examiner may admit affidavits in proof of the compliance with the Standing Orders, or may require further evidence; and such affidavits shall be sworn, if in England or in Ireland, before a justice of the peace or commissioner for oaths, and if in Scotland, before any sheriff depute or his substitute, or a justice of the peace.
104 a. The Committee on any Local Bill may, if they think fit, admit affidavits in proof of any allegation, deed, or document mentioned or set forth in the Bill or in any schedule thereto, or may require further evidence. Such affidavits shall be entitled "In the matter of a Bill now pending in the House of Lords, of which the short title is [insert the short title]," and shall be sworn, if in England or in Ireland, before a justice of the peace or a commissioner for oaths,
1494
and if in Scotland, before any sheriff depute or his substitute, or a justice of the peace. Such affidavits shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
111. In the case of every Bill which gives, revives, or extends power to take land in Scotland or in Ireland, compulsorily or by agreement, clauses shall be inserted—

(1) Providing that the promoters shall not in the exercise of such power purchase or acquire in any local area any house or houses, occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons belonging to the working class, as tenants or lodgers unless and until

(a) They shall have obtained the approval of the Central Authority to a scheme for providing new dwellings for the persons residing in such houses, or for such number or proportion of such persons as the Central Authority shall, after inquiry, deem necessary, having regard to the number of persons residing in the houses liable to be taken and working within one mile therefrom, and to the amount of vacant suitable accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood of the houses liable to be taken, or to the place of employment of such persons, and all the other circumstances of the case; and

(b) They shall have given security to the satisfaction of the Central Authority for the carrying out of the scheme.

(2) Imposing adequate penalties on the promoters in the event of houses being acquired or appropriated for the purposes of the Bill in contravention of the foregoing provisions;

(3) Providing that the expenses or any part of the expenses incurred by the Central Authority under this Order shall be defrayed by the promoters of the Bill, or out of moneys to be raised under the Bill; and

(4) Conferring on the promoters and on the Central Authority respectively any powers that may be

1495
necessary to enable full effect to be given to the said scheme.

Expressions defined in Order 38 have the same meanings in this Order.

NEW STANDING ORDER.
186A. Where under the provisions of Section 9 of the Procedure Act, a Confirmation Bill has been referred to a Joint Committee, the Committee of this House shall consist of three members.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
Agreed to.
Standing Orders amended accordingly, a id to be printed as amended. [No. 187.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I made it a condition of agreeing to the suspension of the Standing Order in this case that there should be no opposition to the Provisional Order. I have had communications both from the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland that that is so, and I am satisfied that the request for the suspension of the Standing Order is a reasonable one in all the circumstances.
On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  STATISTICS.
  1. Statistical Abstract for the several British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates in each year from 1889 to 1903. Forty-first Number;
  2. Statistical Tables relating to British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates.

BRITISH COLONIES (DUTIES ON IMPORTS).
Return relating to the rates of import duties levied upon the principal and other articles imported into the British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates. 1904.
PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
Appendix to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. Vol. III. Appendix and General Index.
TREATY SERIES, No. 5 (1904).
Accession of China to the Convention, signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
No. 3250. Turkey (Salonica).
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1904, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
Supply of Electricity Bill [H.L.]; Weights and Measures (Metric System) Bill [H.L.]; Sea Fisheries Bill [H.L.]; Chantrey Trust. Message from the Commons for copies of the Reports, etc., from the Select Committees. Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
Private Legislation Procedure (Wales) Bill. Report, etc., of the Select Committee of the House of Commons communicated, pursuant to Message of Thursday last, and to be printed. (No. 186.)
County of Suffolk Bill. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

LICENSING BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not propose to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill, but I wish to state as strongly as I can the views which we on this side of the House hold on the subject, and to make what must be a final protest. It may be as well to refer to what has been done in the past on this subject. There has been a great deal of legislation on the liquor question. There was legislation in the eighteenth century, which has been strongly alluded to by the great historian, the late Mr. Lecky, who wrote that the liquor legislation of the eighteenth century was—
  "Incomparably more momentous than any event in the purely political or military annals of the country."
  Then, as we all know, in the earlier part of the nineteenth century there was an attempt to introduce free trade in liquor, with the intent to benefit the country; yet that was a signal failure. I am sadly afraid that the present Bill will have no better success than the legislation to which I have referred. All I wish to say upon that is that the responsibility for this Bill, if it be a blunder, rests with the present Government; we, the Opposition, entirely wash our hands of it.
  The Prime Minister some time ago, in the course of a speech on this subject, indicated that he did not expect legislation to effect a great deal of improvement with regard to drunkenness. I know that that view is held by various people, who think that, just as in Victorian years there was an enormous change for the better in regard to sobriety among the upper and upper-middle classes, probably a higher standard of morality and custom will gradually permeate the working classes. I cannot help thinking that those who urge that view forget the entirely different circumstances in which the working classes are placed. They live in squalid homes, with overcrowded and insanitary rooms, homes situated in slums in which there is a congestion of licensed houses. Can we be surprised if in these circumstances the working classes are open to the temptations of drink? I feel certain that the excessive number of public-houses in many places is of serious detriment to the morality of the poor. I think the way in which this Bill has been carried in the House of Commons must have a great effect in the country. It is
  1498
  a piece of legislation of a most complicated character, and therefore required lengthened and instructed criticism. No doubt there was an immense number of Amendments; but the Prime Minister himself declared on one occasion that he could not say there had been real obstruction. The Government themselves and their supporters proposed over 200 Amendments to the Bill, which showed, I think, the great necessity for the consideration of the Bill and of those Amendments, of which only one-tenth, I believe, were discussed. Therefore I would venture to say that this legislation represents more an edict of the Cabinet than a matured measure coming from Parliament I deeply regret this. I do not find that His Majesty's Government have been at all inclined to consider many of the Amendments which have been urged against the Bill, or many of the Amendments which have been proposed.
  The first of what I believe to be the two great objections to the Bill is the alteration in the jurisdiction of the licensing magistrates for the future. My own opinion is that the alteration is exceedingly harmful. Under it the power of brewster sessions will be extremely limited. It destroys the close touch which brewster sessions had with the immediate locality, and I cannot for a moment believe that, so far as the question of redundant licences is concerned, they will be half as effectual as they were under the existing arrangement, while I am quite certain that a division of authority among brewster sessions, petty sessions, and quarter sessions will weaken and impair the value of the measure. I was somewhat surprised at the horror expressed when my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge proposed an Amendment to place on the committee of quarter sessions county council representatives. I would like to remind His Majesty's Government that they pronounced a very distinct opinion in favour of representatives of the people managing licensing matters in the Bill which they themselves introduced in 1888. In moving that Bill Mr. Ritchie, who was I think Home Secretary at the time, Proposed that quarter sessions should divide their jurisdiction into districts

  1499
  and should control the whole of the licensing in those districts. The Cabinet of the day assented to that principle, and therefore I could not understand why there should have been such protestation against the very mild suggestion of my noble and learned friend.
  The second great objection I have to the Bill is that it is no adequate reform. We have heard a great deal about the £1,250,000 that will be obtained by this fund for the abolition of redundant licences. I do not wish to dwell at any length upon this, but I would remind your Lordships that quarter sessions will not be bound to levy it and the whole money may not be collected. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London put that very strongly, and I cannot refrain from referring to what he said. It is so important that it ought to be thoroughly understood. The right rev. Prelate said—
  "Between March, 1890, and Mardi, 1903, 552 on-licences were suppressed in London, and if progress were made at the same rate there would be a reduction in forty-eight years of 2,038 licences, whereas under the operation of this Bill the utmost would be 1,855 reductions."
  Then the right rev. Prelate turned to the country and asked whether there would be any greater reduction than was now going on. He had figures which showed that there had been twenty-four licences refused in 1903 at brewster sessions in Liverpool. The reduction under the Bill, said the right rev. Prelate, would be eighteen. In Manchester forty were refused, under the Bill it would be seventeen; Exeter thirteen, under the Bill two; Canterbury nine, under the Bill two; Swansea sixteen, under the Bill five. The right rev. Prelate, continuing, said it was the same in the counties, and that if this Bill was to be recommended to temperance reformers those who brought it in must show that under it the reduction would be greater than if no measure was passed. That, I think, is a very strong statement as showing that the Bill will not adequately reduce licences in the country. Then I come to a very important statement made by the Lord Mayor of Manchester, who, speaking at a meeting of the Manchester City Justices, said—
  "The Bill in operation would not be of the slightest benefit to a city like Manchester, as
  1500
  it could not possibly effect within any reason able time either a material reduction in the number of licences or in the amount of drunkenness."
  He gave one striking example. In the district of Hulme, a part of Manchester, the brewers had agreed to surrender fifty licences before the last brewster sessions. But, said the Lord Mayor—
  "The fifty licences have not been surrendered in consequence of the anticipated passing of the Bill. Manchester, under the Bill, might be able to reduce twenty licences a year."
  The discussion on this Bill in your Lordships' House has shown the meaning of the monopoly value of a licence. It is quite clear that the holder of one of these licences has a much better investment than any other trader. He has a much richer business than the grocer, the fruiterer, or any other tradesman. And why? Because he has received a monopoly from the State, and a monopoly which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most of us on this side of the House, is not a permanent monopoly because it is legally only for a year. This Bill increases enormously the value of the business of this trade. We, on the other hand, claim that this monopoly value should be the property of the State. We meet the Government's compensation by a claim for what I will call restitution—the recovery by the State of the monopoly which the State has created, and which, for its own Imperial purposes, the State in future must be endowed with. I do not think the Bill will settle this question. I say that with great sorrow, because I should have liked the Bill to have achieved that object, and I should like to have seen your Lordships' House rise to the occasion and force on the Government some proposal which might have had this effect. I have often heard it said that temperance reformers are extremely violent and immoderate in their demands. That may have been so in the past, but I maintain that temperance reformers during the discussions here and elsewhere have been extremely moderate and have made great concessions. The noble Viscount who presided over the Royal Commission on Licensing, and who was the author of the Minority Report which advocated the strongest measures of reform, waived his individual views on this subject in order to support

  1501
  the most rev. Primate in the very far-reaching proposal which he moved providing a time limit. I, and many of my noble friends waived our other objections in order to concentrate ourselves on this moderate proposal, which we regret was not accepted.
  I am not going to say what will happen after this Bill, which we consider neither just nor right, has passed. It may have a better effect than we think it will have, but I am afraid it will not. We have been continually told by noble Lords opposite that we will be able to alter it when we come into power. That is perfectly true; but I very much regret that it should have been thought necessary to make a suggestion of that kind with regard to a great measure—the only measure of the Government this session—which should have been framed with a view to a settlement of the question which is so greatly agitating the country. The noble Viscount used these very significant words—
  "We have before us a struggle for mastery between the State and the trade."
  I have always abstained front twitting the Government with being in the hands of the trade, but I am afraid there is a great deal of evidence that the Government have been strongly attacked by the trade, and I cannot help thinking that they have introduced many of the clauses at the instance of the trade. I find this remarkable passage in an article in the Licensing World and Licensing Trade Review, a paper which, I have no doubt, speaks authoritatively on this subject—
  "The Government Amendments proposed in the Upper Rouse do not materially affect its provisions."
  Everybody will agree with that—
  "And there is little doubt that the Commons will accept them. With these we must deal next week, merely—"
  and this is what I wish to lay stress on—
  "congratulating in the meantime both the trade and the Government on the extremely satisfactory majorities by which the various stages of the Bill have hitherto been carried. The promises of our friends have been nobly kept, and when the opportunity arises our appreciation thereof shall be proved."
  Such an organisation as that of the trade may be, and often is, a menace to the Government of the day. If the
  1502
  example of what has been done in reference to the brewing interest were followed we should be in nearly as bad a position in regard to the high character and morality of Parliament as some other countries are. I trust that the object-lesson supplied by this Bill will have the effect of preventing the carrying of those measures of a protective character which Mr. Chamberlain is pressing upon the country. I deeply regret the passing of this measure and the methods by which the Government has passed it. I consider that in its present form the Bill will impair and shackle the efforts of real and earnest licensing reformers, and will in no wax bring about a diminution of drinking and drunkenness in this country, with all its consequences of crime and poverty.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as the Episcopal Bench has been perhaps unusally prominent in these discussions, I should like to say a few words before the Bill passes from the purview of your Lordships' House. To say that we who sit on these Benches are not disappointed at the outcome of the week's discussion would be, of course, to stultify the action that we have taken throughout. We are disappointed. We did believe that we could. without unfairness to anybody, make the Bill a good deal better than it was when it left the House of Commons and came to this House, and we did hope for a more favourable hearing than we obtained from those who sit on the Government Bench. As the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, we modified the proposals we made at the risk of finding them regarded by our friends as having been emasculated to the point of uselessness. I do not think they would have been useless if they had been carried. I believe the Amendment we proposed with regard to the time limit would have made all the difference in the world as regards the future working of the Bill.
  Those who try to take a moderate position in matters of this kind are, I suppose, always exposed to two fires. We have been exposed to the fire of those who sit upon the Government Bench in this House. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, while speaking

  1503
  with perfect courtesy, let it be not obscurely understood that he did regard a good many of us who were opposed to him in some of these matters as faddists, or as men who were really at heart adverse to the existence of the trade and its licences altogether. Nothing could be further from the fact, but we have been undoubtedly so represented. On the other hand, we have found throughout these months of controversy that the advance wing of temperance reformers thought that they were not being helped as they ought by us, and that we (as it was put by a leading organ of a political kind the other day) would obviously prefer to see England remain drunk rather than to see it not under the dominance of the Episcopal Bench. That kind of acerbity may be disregarded altogether.
  But at the same time it ought to be remembered that when we have come forward and tried to make a move of this kind, it has not been without the compulsion of separating ourselves to some extent from those who would go further in the direction of reform, and who are actuated by deep-seated principles and by motives of a high and lofty sort. We did take that position. We have done our best. We have tried to fight for what seemed to us to be principles rather than worry over small details in the machinery. But we have been fairly beaten in those endeavours. The Government has been stiff, and, as we think, unduly unyielding. We may be mistaken, but we still believe that a great man of the details of this measure will prove extraordinarily difficult to work out in practice. All that I should like to say now is that if the time comes when it is found that there is a reaction against the provisions of this measure, because of their cumbrousness and unworkableness or their ineffectiveness in doing what they profess to do, I hope it will be remembered that we did make a genuine endeavour, without success, to obtain Amendments.
  We have now got the Bill, and, as my right rev. brother said the other night, we have got to live with it, at any rate for a time. Personally, I do not believe it will be a very long time that we shall have to live with it exactly as it is, and this, not so much because of the probe-
  1504
  bility of our opponents desiring to reopen the question at an early date—I think experience shows that to reopen this question is not a task that is much loved by any Government, or Party—but because, as I believe, the machinery will require re-setting; and incidentally, therefore, the question will have to be more or less reopened. But while we have got the Bill as it is, I desire to say most emphatically, speaking at all events for myself, and I think I may say for a great many others, that we do mean to do our very best to make it work well. We desire by public guidance, by private counsel and advice, and by loyalty to its principles, so far as they go, to make it work as well as ever we can for a cause we all have at heart. We can say, and we do say, that it will not be our fault if the Act does not work well. We desire to help forward the cause which we are told this Bill is designed to promote, and if our fears are falsified and the Bill turns out in working to be so much better than we have anticipated, no one will be more thankful than those whom I have the privilege of representing.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I have no intention of addressing your Lordships at any length on this occasion, but I do not think it would be respectful to the noble Earl opposite that on this, the last occasion that we have of discussing the details of the measure, his remarks should. go entirely unanswered. Let me say, in the first place, that I fully recognise the fair and reasonable spirit in which the most rev. Primate, and also the noble Earl opposite, have made the protest which they think necessary at this the last stage of the Bill. I know than their views with regard to this measure differ widely from ours, and I acknowledge that they have a perfect right, not having succeeded in carrying many of the Amendments which they proposed, in making their protest against the Bill, and at the same time I recognise that they have done it in a spirit to which no one could take exception. The first point to which the noble Earl addressed himself was, I think, the jurisdiction of magistrates. I ventured, in moving the Second Reading, to go at some length into the actual proposals of the Bill, because I felt.

  1505
  that some injustice had been done and that the proposals had not been fairly represented. Notwithstanding all the criticism that has been passed upon the proposed changes, I still maintain that the views and interests of the local bench are well protected.
  It is not fair to make the distinction sought to be set up between the local magistrates and quarter sessions. The latter are composed of local justices, and local opinion will not and cannot be ignored, while it is absolutely essential that the fund should be under the administration of the county authority. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London made sonic remarks on the Second Reading of a very trenchant character with regard to the number of licences that had already been done away with and the number that would be abolished in the future under this Bill. I think it has already been shown that the basis of his calculation was one which he would himself admit ought to be modified, in view of the facts that have been laid before him. He took a basis which was much higher than that which would probably apply to the average licence done away with, and in that way he made it appear that fewer licences would be abolished under this Bill than would otherwise be the case. By reference to what has been done in Liverpool, Manchester, and elsewhere in the reduction of licences, an endeavour has been made to show that the effect of the Bill will be small; but the broad fact is that while the highest number of licences clone away with in a year on the ground of non-requirement was 200, under the Bill the lowest estimate for the first year's operations is 1,500.
  It is perfectly true that this Bill does recognise monopoly value in licences at present in existence; that has been allowed to grow up, and the Government do not feel that they would be acting justly in ignoring it, especially when the compensation is to come out of the pockets of the members of the trade themselves. What I ask the House to remember, and I do not think it has been recognised as fully as it ought to have been in this House, is that for the first time in any legislation the trade is going to pay the whole of the compensation out of their own pockets.
  1506
  I venture to say that if that proposal had been made a few years ago there would have been little opportunity of its reaching this House. This fund which the trade will pay is not a small sum. A remark was made at the last stage of the Bill deprecating giving increased value to brewers who had more than one house done away with. It was said that the higher scale which they would be charged would be quite out of proportion to the increase in the value of their premises; but let the House remember that there nothing else out of which they can be compensated but this fund which they contribute themselves. Something like 80 per cent. of the total number of public-houses are tied houses, and I think it will be admitted that tied houses are of at least as great value as ordinary houses. If that is the case, it is making a very low estimate, supposing the provisions in this Bill are fully enforced, to say that the actual contributions of the trade themselves during each year will be about £1,000,000. That is not a small sum, and although they will get compensation for disturbance they will for many years before their houses are touched pay this very large levy.
  The proposal for a time limit the-Government could not see their way in. fairness to accept, and if it should be the desire of the country that licences should be reduced more quickly than the rate the Bill provides, then the only reasonable and logical way of doing it would be by the public providing the fund for the purpose. I had a conversation during the week with a gentleman who has had as large an experience in the management of hotels and houses in which spirituous liquors are sold as anybody in the country, and he stated that he looked for the promotion of temperance, net so much to, the doing away of a very large number of public-houses as to a change in the conditions, which will lead to the setting up of refreshment houses, in which direction Lord Grey and others have done such useful work, houses in which there will be discouragement of excessive drinking. I cannot see myself, why, when a reasonable number of houses have been red aced, the magistrates should not largely make use of the power they have of doing away with the present public-houses in order to set up houses under conditions which

  1507
  would be satisfactory to the public and tend against excessive drinking. Although we should have liked to have met the Amendments of the Opposition to a much larger extent than we were able to, I nevertheless sincerely believe that the Bill will prove a measure which will lead to a very appreciable reduction in the number of public-houses, and with a considerable reduction of the existing number of licences the Bill will, I believe, pave the way to a much better condition of things in the management of licensed houses.
  *TILE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): I hope your Lordships will not think I am taking too much upon myself if I intrude in this debate and say a few words upon this subject before we part altogether with the Bill. I took no part in the Second Reading of the Bill, and, for reasons which are known to your Lordships, it would probably not have been convenient if I had intervened at the Committee stage, and I will frankly admit that most of the experience which I can bring to bear upon this subject is derived from that country which is north of the Tweed, and does not enable me to speak with much confidence upon many of the intricate questions involved in the English licensing law. At the same time there are some, and not a few, general principles to be found in the legislation which Parliament hag passed at various times upon this subject which are common to the countries both north and south of the Tweed.
  The experience which I have had in this matter is this. I served for more
  than twenty years before the time I went into office as chairman of a licensing, bench, and I had last year to consider the whole licensing law of Scotland on behalf of the Government. We succeeded in codifying it and making some important reforms. It seems to me that some sound general principles of wide application are infringed by this Bill, and as there is always a danger that things which are thought good for the country south of the Tweed may have a tendency to apply themselves, or to be applied, to the country north of the Tweed I wish to put in a caveat and to say that from my experience of Scottish law, Scottish interests, and
  1508
  Scottish circumstances, there is hardly anything in this Bill which would be welcomed in Scotland.
  It is claimed as a great measure of temperance reform, and I have no doubt whatever that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it is a measure of temperance reform. But I hope before this debate concludes some one on behalf of the Government will give us a definite list of the points in the Bill which they consider as tending in the direction of temperance reform. Having paid some attention to the discussions which went on in Committee the other night, I can only think of two. One is the changed position which will be given to the ante-1869 beer houses. That is a class of institution which, fortunately as I think, we do not know in Scotland, and I grant at once that it is a considerable measure of temperance reform that they will be to a large extent deprived, under proper safeguards and compensation, of the peculiar position of privilege which they have occupied up to this time. The second point tending in the direction of temperance reform in this Bill is the increased probability of a reduction of licences. That point has been challenged by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, by the noble Earl opposite, and by others; but I venture to say that, in my opinion, on that point the Government have made out a certain case under this Bill, and that for causes other than misconduct, there is a considerable prospect of, at any rate, some reduction of licences.
  I do not desire to understate that matter, but to put it perfectly fairly. I think there is sometimes a tendency to lay too much stress on the probable effect of a reduction in the number of licences. We have all heard of the gentleman who can pass three public-houses but cannot pass the fourth. I venture to think that he is a somewhat mythical person. I believe that if a man passes three public-houses and goes into the fourth it is because he has some object in doing so. He either prefers the company he gets there or the beverages in the fourth establishment; and my belief is that so far as that class of person is concerned if you were to shut up the fourth public-house he would find his way into the third, and that if you shut up the third it is not improbable that he would

  1509
  find his way into the second. But there of a point in regard to the reduction of licences whch I think important. The had point about the excessive number of licences is the unhealthy competition which is created amongst the licence-holders for the custom of those who use the houses. Excessive competition is bad because it induces the provision of attractions, one house against the other, which, undoubtedly, do tend to the consumption of a greater amount of alcoholic liquor than would otherwise be consumed.
  The noble Marquess the Leader of the House claimed great credit the other day for the Bill in that it would put an end to licences where they were redundant. The noble Lord who spoke last confirmed that, and added that this compensation will all come out of the pockets of the trade. To a certain extent it will; but one of the objections which I have to he Bill is that the method by which that compensation is taken and the privileges whch are given in return for it are such as to put the public in a worse position after the Bill became law than they were before. The quotation which the noble Earl read to the House shows that the trade feel that even if this Bill passes in the form in which it is now before your Lordships, as it probably will, they as a trade can congratulate themselves upon having made a very good bargain in regard to this matter. Those are the two points, for what they are worth, on which I think the Government are justified in claiming this as a measure of temperance reform. I agree about the beer-houses altogether, and regard the other as too dearly bought.
  I think the Government have made a mistake in not attempting in this Bill to attack the tied-house system. I believe that that system as it has grown up in this country is the bane of the whole trade and of the public. I believe that to no single cause is the present state of things due more than to the fact that these houses are the property of great brewery companies, and that the people who are actually concerned with their management are obliged by the position they occupy in regard to those brewery companies to push the sale of alcoholic liquors by all means in their power, fair and unfair, and feel that their prospects
  1510
  and chances in life depend on the amount of return which they transmit to those who are really their masters. I believe that the noble Lord who spoke last was perfectly right when he said that one of the great points to be looked at in this question of licences was not so much the number of houses which remained as the kind of management under which they are carried on. I believe that there is more to be done by a wise, healthy, scrupulous, and conscientious management of the houses and strict conformity not only with the letter but with the spirit of the law, than by the mere reduction of their number, and it is because I do not see in this Bill any sufficient premium for good management that I think a great opportunity has been lost by the Government. I know there is a clause in the Bill that there is to be refreshment at reasonable prices, but I venture to think it is not so much a question of whether there is to be a mutton chop for 6d. or a sausage roll for 2½d. as whether the general management of the establishment is to be satisfactory or whether there is an indirect compulsion put upon the taking of the strongest class of intoxicating liquors as contrasted with other beverages.
  I deprecate greatly the interference with the discretion of the magistrates. I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said the other night, that this work was not in the strict sense of the term judicial work; but that it is administrative work which has to be done in a judicial spirit. In my opinion the maintenance of the absolute discretion of the Bench is the very keynote of all temperance reform. I do not believe you can get efficient work by hedging the Bench round with rules. You must put men on the Bench whom you can trust, and when they are there von must trust them. You must make them feel that they are responsible to the country for the action they take, and, if I may venture to say so, they must not be on a particular Bench in very large numbers. For this reason, the larger the number the less is the sense of direct personal responsibility. That was the principle upon which we went last year in Scotland, and although, as the noble Lord said, we allowed a considerable infusion of the elective element, we limited the

  1511
  numbers of our Bench very carefully, and I know that that reform has been accepted with gratitude by the trade and with absolute concurrence by those who are engaged in the work of temperance reform.
  I do not venture to say that the reform of the Bench comes within the scope of this Bill. It does not. But who fixed the scope of the Bill? Who are responsible for that? I express my own personal opinion that if the Government had undertaken the reform of the Bench rather than a tinkering with their powers, their Bill would have had a more cordial reception and would have been likely to effect a great deal better work in the future. There can be no doubt of this, that the whole tenure of licences in England has been changed by this Bill. It will be a wholly different tenure after this Bill has passed from what it was before, and my objection to the change is that, in my humble opinion, it does not pave the way for that complete freedom to the public which will be the only final and permanent solution of this question. I go further and say I believe it will he an absolute obstacle in the way of that complete reform.
  We all agree that some interest has grown up in the licence. No noble Lord has taken the extravagant and, as I think. the absurd position of saying that no interest exists, and that you can suddenly deprive the holders of licences of their interest, such as it is, without compensation. There is no doubt whatever that partly by custom, partly by the apathy of the public, partly by the practice of the Bench itself, a very material interest has been acquired, and it has been acknowledged and accepted and acted upon by the Inland Revenue authorities, who have taken duty upon it when it has been transferred from one holder to another by death. Both sides of the House have agreed to accept that reasonable position. I do not know whether your Lordships recollect the retort which was made by Mr. Bradlaugh to some of Mr. Henry George's theories. He is reported to have said that there are only two ways by which one man can acquire the property of another—one was by purchase and the ether by stealing. There are only those ways, and you must either confiscate the
  1512
  property or give some fair form of recompense.
  No one, I think, can really contend that the interest which has grown up is anything like a freehold interest; and I venture to say that the blot upon this. Bill is that the interest has been put far too high, and that, in the future it will place in a far too greatly privileged position those who hold licences at the present time for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal said—
  "But you must remember that many people have invested their money in these licences, and to deprive them of what they have paid for would be pillage."
  That is a strong term, and if it was proposed to absolutely deprive the holders of licences of the interest they had acquired I should agree, but I think it is put far too high. You cannot at this time of day protect adult men and women against wrong and improvident investments, and to apply such a term as "pillage" to any proposal that has been made in this House is to place the argument far too high.
  I dislike the source of compensation which is provided by this Bill, and I dislike it because I see in it, I was going to say, no finality, but, if it has any finality, it is in the direction of making exceedingly difficult the absolute recovery of that freedom of dealing with licences which ought to be the whole end of temperance reform. I think that a time limit of sufficient duration, accompanied by a scheme of compulsory mutual insurance, would have been a sufficient solution of this difficulty. But if that was not sufficient—I am speaking only for myself, and I know that very few temperance reformers will agree with me—I would sooner have seen a fund established avowedly from national resources for the purpose of compensation, in order to secure to the public the complete freedom of dealing with licences without which no temperance reform can ever be complete. Having regard to the position of matters in Scotland, I do not think that the principles of this Bill could fairly be applied to that country, and I think it right to say so now, lest by my silence I might hereafter in this House or in Scotland be held to have tacitly passed

  1513
  for England, without having put in any caveat, a scheme which might be regarded as satisfactory for Scotland.
  There are three or four very considerable differences in our position from I that soath of the Tweed. In the first place, our licence is granted to the person who actually carries on the business, and the owner of the premises is very little, if at all, recognised. The brewers and distillers are not recognised as owners of licences. I have not been actively connected with licensing matters in Scotland for the past decade, but up to ten years ago the Bench over which I presided made it their practice to warn licence-holders that if they tied themselves to ally brewery or distillery the Bench would regard that as justifying the taking away of the licence. If that practice had been maintained in England it would have been better. As to the actual licence, when the interest which the holder has acquired in the goodwill, or whatever it may be, of the premises comes to be valued, it is carefully considered whether he is the tenant or the owner, and, if he is the tenant, what length of lease he possesses.
  Every licence-holder must be in one of four classes. He may be either a tenant with a lease or a tenant without a lease, or he may be the owner and occupier or the owner and not the occupier. The Inland Revenue authorities in Scotland have not given away the case so completely as I am afraid has been the case in England. When a man is a tenant with no lease, it is very rarely that any duty is got by the Inland Revenue. If there has been a sale to tic incoming tenant, or if the late tenant has recently bought, there is an effort to get at what he paid and something is taken, but generally the sale is conditional on the transfer of the licence being obtained. In the case where the man is a tenant under a lease his interest stands somewhat higher, and in the strongest case of all, when a man is both owner and occupier, a duty is got, but it is only obtained upon a very small calculation of the enhanced value.
  I was looking through the state of the law last year and came across a recorded case in the Court of Session where there had been a contest be-
  1514
  tween the Inland Revenue authorities and the owner of a licence as to the value of the goodwill. The case is that of the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Inland Revenue against the widow of a spirit merchant residing in Edinburgh. In that case the Inland Revenue claimed £3,000 or five times the annual value of the goodwill, which they put at £600. The owner of the licence contested both the number of years purchase and the value put upon the goodwill, and after consultation and the showing of figures an agreement was come to—it was not a decision by the Court but an agreement between parties ratified by the Court—fixing an annual value of £200 for the goodwill; but what was the gross sun paid? It was only £500, or two-and-half years purchase. That shows at once that if anything in the nature of this Bill was to he applied to Scotland we should be in an infinitely worse position than we are at the present time.
  I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for having entered upon this discussion. It is a matter on which, so far as England is concerned, I have no practical or personal experience, but I am apprehensive that an attempt may be made to extend the general principles of this Bill to Scotland, and I wish to take this opportunity of showing, not only that there is a difference in the circumstances of the two countries, but that it would be act of gross injustice to apply the principles of this Bill to the country north of the Tweed.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, considering that my noble friend who had just sat down did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, and proposed no Amendments on the Report stage, when the disabilitity to which he had called attention would not have attached to him, I think we might have been rather surprised at the tenor of his speech but for one consideration. I have always observed that when an Assembly such as your Lordships' House is addressed by a Member hailing from north of the Tweed, it is always necessary for them to listen to the observation, couched in very elaborate terms, but always to the same effect—"We are not as other men." And,

  1515
  my Lords, I think my noble friend's speech was an elaborate extension of that ancient phrase. He asked us, however, to state to him and to the House what were the improvements in temperance legislation which we claim to have effected by this Bill. Even as he himself related them, I think your Lordships will agree that the improvements were by no means inconsiderable. But his enumeration was not complete.
  When he was making this elaborate attack upon the provisions of the Bill, my noble friend absolutely omitted to notice all the provisions which have reference to new licences. That was a very astonishing omission. I admit that in regard to existing licences the Government have felt themselves restricted by their feeling of obligation to acknowledge that pecuniary interest in their licences which existing licensees, by the admission of my noble friend, possess. But with regard to new licences we were not hampered, and in respect of new licences by far the greatest change in the law in respect of temperance legislation is to be found. We have done our best to make it impossible henceforward for the monopoly value of the liquor trade to belong to anybody else but the State. As to the precise application of the money which will arise from the monopoly value of the new licences, we have had a good deal of discussion upon that in Committee and on the Report stage. We were able to make a very important concession to independent Members of your Lordships' House, and I think it will be agreed that, whatever may be the ultimate shape which that Amendment assumes, we have at any rate done this, we have removed from the legislation of this country that very gross provision by which Parliament gives to private individuals, with the licences, the monopoly value of the drink, to which they have no claim, to the detriment of the community. That is, I think, a very important element in the list which my noble friend entirely forgot.
  Then there are the ante-1869 beer-houses. My noble friend mentioned them, but only in order to convey the information to your Lordships that in that blessed country north of the Tweed there are no ante-1869 beerhouses. I
  1516
  congratulate my noble friend. It makes the task of dealing with Scotland, of course, easier; but I do not think that detracts from our merit in having dealt with the problem south of the Tweed. When your Lordships remember that one-third of the whole of the licensed houses south of the Tweed are ante-1869 beerhouses, and that for the first time they become by this Bill subject to the ultimate control of the magistrates of this country, so that they can, if necessary, be suppressed, I think your Lordships will admit that that constitutes a very large item to be placed to the credit side of the account when estimating what good for temperance this Bill will effect.
  Then there is the reduction of licences. My noble friend mentioned that, but with a good deal of criticism. Other noble Lords have minimised the merit of that provision, because they have said that the number of public-houses which we propose to reduce will be very few. I do not propose to go over the ground which was discussed on the other stages of the Bill, nor do I propose to repeat what my noble friend Lord Belper has just said, but I would like to remind your Lordships of this, that when we have mentioned the number of licensed houses which can be suppressed under this Bill, we have nearly always spoken of the money available as an annual sum. But if quarter sessions or the great municipalities are anxious to move more quickly they can capitalise the annual sum to the extent permitted by the Amendment inserted at the last stage, namely, for fifteen years. The money can be so capitalised with the consent of the Home Secretary and that will produce in London alone an enormous sum, and enable an immediate enormous reduction in the number of licensed houses. That is a method of dealing with this subject which I think your Lordships will agree to a large extent meets the criticism of the right rev. Prelate that very little is done under the Bill. You will have a sum which I calculate will be at least £2,500,000 if the full fifteen years term of borrowing is permitted, with which the licensed houses can be immediately reduced within a few months after the passing of

  1517
  this Bill. I hope it may be some comfort to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London that, after all, he will not find the Bill so useless as he imagines. But my noble friend who has just sat down is still dissatisfied with what the Bill can effect. He forgot the great facilities which will be given by this Bill to my noble friend Earl Grey to carry out his system of licensing reform. I suppose that does not interest our friends north of the Tweed.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I happen to be President of the trust in Scotland which is working the same scheme.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very glad to find that there is one particular in which Scotland is content to be taught by England. It is rather wonderful to hear the example of Scotland trotted out in temperance discussions. Though perhaps in most respects Scotland is far better than England—I have no doubt my noble friend would assure us it was so—yet in temperance matters Scotsmen have fallen a little behind their friends south of the Tweed, and perhaps the difference of our licensing law may have had something to do with it. It does not follow necessarily that because the licensing law in Scotland differs from the licensing law in England we stand in a worse position than the sister kingdom. My noble friend, however, said he would have preferred that we had established a rational fund, contributed by the ordinary taxpayers, with which we might have bought out all the interests in licensed premises. That is not a proposal which, I think, at the present moment would have successfully been made to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, as a matter of fact, there is nothing whatever in our Bill, when it becomes law, to prevent my noble friend or noble Lords opposite, if they have the control of the Government of this country, from establishing such a national fund. Let them, by all means—it will not be inconsistent with our Bill—come to Parliament and ask for powers to collect the taxes with the view of buying out the interest of publicans. That would undoubtedly
  1518
  produce much more rapid results than we shall be able to obtain under this Bill, but I doubt very much whether noble Lords opposite will take that course, and I very much doubt whether my noble friend will be in a position to propose it.
  Therefore, my Lords, we must come back to the Government Bill, and the principles on which it is worked. We think that it is calculated to carry out a great many temperance reforms. We do Lot agree with my noble friend's condemnation of the tied-house system. We see no reason to pronounce this condemnation ex cathedra of that system. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission states that there is a great deal to be said for the tied-house system. I do not say that if we had to start completely afresh we might not invent something better, but where the tied-house system is in the hands of good brewers, the Majority Report found that it was not a bad system but a good system, and that the large brewers used their influence, not for mischief, but in order to do good to the community. I respectfully protest against this unmeasured, this unlimited condemnation of a perfectly respectable body of men.
  My noble friend said there was nothing in our Bill for good management. I imagine he has not noticed that the amount of compensation which will be awarded to the publican if his licence is suppressed depends on good management. In the ordinary case of a publican whose tenure is a year or less than a year, the amount the publican will get out of the compensation money will depend on his good conduct. Is that not a provision in the interests of good management? Then my noble friend, having attacked His Majesty's Government, made a general attack on all the magistrates south of the Tweed.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Marquess quote my words
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understood the noble Lord to say that what we had to do was not to think so much about public-houses but to reform the Bench. I happen to have the great honour of being a magistrate myself, as

  1519
  has nearly every one of your Lordships, and I utterly repudiate the idea that we are unfit for our work in this respect. Why should the noble Lord say so? Why should he think so? What interest have we, the magistrates, to do anything but our duty in regard to the licensing law? For myself, I believe that the changes in the law in our Bill with respect to the magistrates are for good. They do not limit their powers—in some respects they extend their powers; and as quarter sessions will necessarily include the best magistrates of a county, we may expect from them a still further improvement in the administration of the licensing law.
  I will say one word with regard to the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. He regretted the Bill, and he regretted more than the Bill the method by which it had been carried. I share with him that regret. I think it is a profound pity that the Parliamentary machine does not seem to work as well as it used to. I have been seventeen years in the House of Commons, and I have some experience of the reason and causes of these things. It does not, perhaps, become a Member of your Lordships' House to make criticisms on the methods of business in another place; but I may say this, that if the object of those who discuss a Bill is not merely to improve it, but also to break the Government programme for the session, then you will never get a Bill properly discussed whatever your rules or constitution may be. That being so, it is not surprising that the Bill should have come up to your Lordships with so many of its provisions not properly submitted to the other House of Parliament.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Marquess is alleging what I should describe as pure obstruction, but the Prime Minister absolutely stated on one occasion that he did not consider there had been any obstruction in the Amendments which had been put down and in the discussion which had taken place on the Bill in the other House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we had better avoid epithets. I will not call it anything. All I say is, that if there is not a desire to amend the
  1520
  Bill, but an unavowed desire to make the progress of Government business difficult, and to break the session, you will never get a Bill properly discussed. I was very careful, knowing that these debates in your Lordships' House were impending, to carefully read everything that was said in the other House. I find that nearly all, if not all, the important points in this Bill were in fact discussed, not necessarily upon the specific clauses or lines where they arise in the Bill, but in the course of the various discussions upon the Bill. I have only one word more to say, and it is to thank the most rev. Primate for the great moderation of his speech this evening. I do not think he ever could have entertained the hope that the Government would accept the time limit which he proposed. But I recognise that the time limit having been rejected, it is, if I may say so with great respect, exceedingly creditable to him that he should be able to speak so well of the Bill. He has told your Lordships that though he does not agree with the Bill, though his opposition to it remains, vet he intends to do his utmost to make it work well, and that, I think, is a sentiment which every one of your Lordships will approve. I hope that the light which we have been able to throw on the provisions of the Bill in another place, and in your Lordships' House, may have led some noble Lords who were originally opposed to the Bill, to take a more charitable view of it, and to share with the Government the hope, nay, the expectation, that some good to temperance may at last be effected.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I only rise to say one word before the Bill is read a third time and passed. The critics of the Bill have been reinforced by the speech of Lord Balfour, who is one of the most level-headed and fairest-minded Members of your Lordships' House. There is an old saying about erring with Plato; there are many subjects on which I would rather be beaten with Lord Balfour than win with many another. In reference to what has been said about my figures, I presume that I may scrutinise carefully the string by which any attraction hangs which is held out to me. It was the Colonial Secretary who held out the attraction

  1521
  that the public-houses of London would be reduced 25 per cent., the string by which it hung was the estimate of £3,000 per licence. I was perfectly justified then in taking this as the estimate. Put this £3,000 into the £5,565,000 and it gives the exact number I mentioned, 1855. My figures, therefore, have by no means been shaken by any criticism. Let me add, however, in the spirit of the most rev. Primate, that if more public-houses are closed titan I expect under the Bill, no one will be more glad than I. Though I have opposed the Bill, as I think your Lordships will agree it was my duty to do, I, too, will do my best to work the Bill in London. If it does more good than I expect, I shall be very glad indeed.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NAVAL ADMINISTRATION.
LORD BRASSEYrose to call attention to the programme of shipbuilding for the Navy. He said: My Lords, British naval administration has reached a high standard of efficiency, due to the efforts of a long succession of able Ministers—to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Spencer, and to-day to the First Lord, aided as he has been by his naval colleagues, and especially by Lord Walter Kerr, now retiring full of honours from active service. The Navy must always call for the supervision of Parliament. The Estimates for 1904–5 have reached an amount unprecedented in time of peace—in round figures £4,37,000,000 under Estimates; £5,000,000 for naval works. Are reductions possible under any heads of charge? The Votes for manning have increased in ten years from £5,400,000 to £9,100,000. A voluntary service must be costly, and our numbers have been increased in ten years from 86,103 to 131,100 men.
Compare our permanent force with that of other naval Powers—France, 50,000; Germany, 34,000; United States, 45,000 men. Our permanent force is too large and our Reserves are too few. It is an agreeable duty to acknowledge the successful efforts of the Admiralty to
1522
strengthen the Reserves. With stronger Reserves we might have more power of expansion with less expenditure. Some economy is possible in our training service. We have too many boys in harbour ships. The Admiralty have wisely decided to reduce the number. Boys entered at an older age in seagoing training ships have done well. The aggregate Estimates for naval works, as proposed under the Bill of 1895, were under £9,000,000. The total has now advanced to £27,500,000. It can hardly be contended that all the new works are of urgent necessity. Take as an example the estimate of £3,500,000 for Simon's Bay. Here, certainly there was a case of over-lapping. Our commercial base at Cape Town, with all its resources in docks and skilled workmen, was close at hand, and must be strongly held. With a subsidy from the Admiralty the Cape Government would have provided new docks or enlarged existing docks, and at less cost. New docks for the Navy entail a permanent addition to expenditure. They are useless without workmen, who must be paid at the Cape at Colonial rates. Parliament should be more vigilant in examining all new proposals, more especially for works in distant parts of the world.
Turning to the Votes for shipbuilding, their amount has increased from under £9,000,000 in 1895 to £18,420,000 for 1904–5. The increase has been necessary to maintain the two-Power standard in shipbuilding. For the years 1895–1904 the aggregate outlay for construction was officially given by the Secretary to the Admiralty at £70,000,000 in round figures for Great Britain, as against £83,000,000 for France, Russia, and Germany. We must look for reductions in future years. The shipbuilding Votes for the present year have been abnormally increased by the purchase of the "Swiftsure" and "Triumph." We have now reached a total of no less than £12,000,000, or more than the shipbuilding Votes of France, Russia, and Germany. And we build at least 25 per cent.—in a case lately given in a French official report, 44 per cent.—more cheaply than is possible in Russia or in France. By the efforts of recent years our naval supremacy is, for the time at least, assured. We are the better

1523
able to follow other Powers in a policy of retrenchment. It is useless to spend large sums on shipbuilding unless we have some expectation that the costly ships we lay down will be retained for a reasonable time on the list of effectives.
As to types, our naval architects fully hold their own. Our first-class battleships, whether designed by Sir William White or Mr. Watts, are not surpassed in any foreign navy. The rivalry of constructors under peace conditions tends towards exaggeration of size. The cost has advanced for the eight ships of the "Edward VII." class—and doubtless for the "Nelson," our latest design—to no less than £1,500,000. As the cost increases the numbers which can be built for any given sum must be less, and superiority in numbers must tell. That was the lesson of the Great War. The fleets of Lord Nelson consisted chiefly of 74's. At Trafalgar there were no four-deckers in the British line of battle. Superiority in numbers is even more important in modern naval warfare. The largest ships are as vulnerable below the belt as those of less dimensions. Size gives no immunity from the risks of stranding, collision, and fog. We are bound to build ships equal to the most powerful in foreign navies, but we need a less costly type. The "Swiftsure" and "Triumph," designed by Sir Edward Reed, lately purchased into the Navy at a cost per ship of £950,000, combining as they do the fighting power of battleships and the speed and coal endurance of cruisers, should find a place in future programmes. They could be built in the proportion of three to two of our largest types.
I have no criticisms to offer as to cruisers. I congratulate the Admiralty on their policy of cutting out vessels of no value for naval purposes. We built too many in times past. For the protection of commerce in distant seas and along the ocean routes our largest cruisers are the most satisfactory. Scouts are necessary. They are the eyes of the fleet. In the olden days the scouts were the frigates, of which Lord Nelson never had enough. Last year four vessels of the new type, officially designated as "scouts," were laid down. In the programme of 1904–5 we have four more vessels of the same class. The scouts are to steam twenty-five knots on an eight
1524
hours trial. The speed is high, but the displacements are too small to carry the supply of coal required in vessels designed to sweep the ocean. The scouts can hardly be reckoned as fighting vessels. They cannot compare with cruisers in armament; they are without protection. They will break up in a few minutes under a heavy fire; and their complements number 268 officers and men. Vessels of the scout type could, of course, chase destroyers, but no vessels have as yet been designed as effective as destroyers for repelling torpedo attacks upon a fleet of battleships. The greater the superiority in numbers the more complete the defence. Destroyers cost £50,000; scouts little less than £300,000. I would urge that no more vessels of the scout class should be laid down until those in hand have been tried at sea.
The scout class is not an untried type. In the years 1896–1900 twelve third-class cruisers of the "Pelrous" class, similar in dimensions to the scouts, and designed for similar services, were laid down. They had a speed of twenty knots. Their coal endurance was insufficient for scouting. It was soon seen that the "Pelorus" class must be failures. Lord Goschen's criticisms, in introducing the Navy Estimates on the 26th February, 1900, apply with equal force to the scouts—
"Then there is another point," he said, "connected with the programme of last year, namely, that we have dropped our proposal to lay down three third-class cruisers of rather larger dimensions than the 'Pelorus' class, intended to be very fast, and designed for special purposes We were guided in the matter to a certain extent by the experience of other countries. France had also intended to lay down some very fast small cruisers, but the French naval architects like our own appear to have found the task impossible to perform, and the French Government have withdrawn the small third-class cruisers from their programme just as we have dropped them from ours. The attempt was to put an enormous amount of machinery within a vessel of very small dimensions. That has been accomplished in the torpedo destroyers. They are light and very delicate instruments; but when we came to try it on a larger scale it was thought that these third-class cruisers would only be torpedo destroyers on a larger scale, and that they would not have the necessary seagoing or fighting power, and, therefore, it was thought better not to embark on an ambitious attempt which, though it would result in the appearance of a great success, might turn out to be impracticable in war.

1525
It would seem scarcely necessary to build special vessels as scouts. In the third class we have many cruisers no longer effective for the protection of commerce which should be effective for scouting duties. They have a speed of twenty knots, and a coal capacity far superior to that of the scouts. Their speed might be considerably increased by reducing armaments. As the eves of the Fleet, no regularly built vessels of war can compare with the greyhounds of the mercantile marine. They were strongly recommended to the Committee on Subsidies by Lord Charles Beresford. In giving evidence before the Committee he said—
"In war the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy must be to a very great extent intermingled. In allowing your admirals a certain number of very fast merchant ships by way of auxiliaries to the Fleet you may save a campaign and you may win an initial advantage. These ships would form the line of communication. They would carry information to an admiral of the movements of an enemy's fleet. There is no ship that can do this service better than the ocean greyhounds that are built for speed in any weather. That is their utility."
Lord Charles Beresford gave suggestions as to the means by which the construction of such vessels should be encouraged by the aid of the Government, and the ships retained under the British flag. There are strong political arguments in favour of a policy of subsidies to auxiliary vessels as the scouts of the Fleet. Swift communications are a bond of Empire. It is satisfactory to know that some definite conclusion has been reached on the subject of boilers. As to repairs, large sums have been wasted in the past in repairs to ships of no value for naval purposes. The remedy is to put such vessels out of commission. I congratulate the Admiralty on the strength of the Fleet in ships, and in officers and men inspired by their traditions and always eager to do their duty.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree with the greater part of what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken, especially with regard to what he has said about the construction of smaller battleships. Large battleships take so long to build that in all probability a modern war would be over before new ships could be built to replace the losses
1526
that we are certain to incur. In addition It our losses during fleet actions, balanced it is to be hoped by equal losses on the part of the enemy, we may fairly expect that those sub-aqueous explosions which are playing so large a part in the Russo Japanese war will from time to time still further reduce the numbers of our first-class ships. Under modern conditions of warfare, however successful we may be, we are unlikely to be able to replace these vessels by captures, and we shall, therefore, in all probability emerg from the war, or find ourselves in the middle of it, with fewer line-of-battle ships than we began with, a position that we have never yet been in, a position which will place us at a disadvantage, especially if we find ourselves face to face with unfriendly neutral Powers.
I therefore suggest that the Naval Construction Department should now, in time of peace, design, but not build, a small type of heavily armed battleship, two of which should be superior to one first-class battleship. The ruling principle of their construction should be that it should be possible to build them quickly, so that several of the class could be put out to contract at the commencement of war with a reasonable prospect of their being finished in time to be of use. The expense of preparing such a design would amount to a few hundred pounds only, and if this were done, a small fleet of such vessels would be ready for sea some months sooner than would be the case if the drawings had to be thought out, and the ships designed, before the actual work of building could be commenced. The noble Earl has given us his peace programme of naval construction, but I hope that he either has, or soon will have, a war programme of ships, with designs completed and drawn to scale, ready to be put in hand the moment that such a misfortune occurs. I do not, however, wish to ask him for the details of that programme. I think that it is better that they should remain in the category of State secrets.
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I will take the opportunity afforded me by my noble friend of dealing with one or two of those points of naval administration which have formed the subject of

1527
debate elsewhere during the session. I admit that I am glad of the opportunity of speaking on them; for I have not the privilege of defending the Estimates for which I am responsible in another place, and it is only such opportunities as this occasion affords me which enable me to defend the policy of the Board for which I Jam responsible. In the first place, the great size of the Navy Estimates has attracted a great deal of attention and a good deal of adverse comment. I am responsible, of course, principally for the Navy, but I also, as a Cabinet Minister, share to the full the responsibility of my colleagues for the state of the finances, and I am glad of this opportunity of saying that in my opinion a sound condition of finance is as important to the strength and well-being of this country as the sound condition of the Navy.
I would say that the Navy and our national credit are the two pillars on which in every material sense the safety of this Empire depends. The fabric of the Empire is built up by the character of our people and our national industries; the maintenance of that fabric depends upon our finances and upon the Navy together. If the Navy is weak, our national credit never can be assured; if our national finance is not in a thoroughly sound condition; if we have not a margin on which to fall back in time of emergency, then proper provision cannot be made for the Navy. Therefore, I am the last person to complain of the criticism which is being levelled against the size of the Navy Estimates. The responsibility for the justification rests upon me and upon my Board. Now, an offer was made a year or two ago by Lord Goschen, and repeated by my right hon. friend Mr. Ritchie, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if other nations would agree to diminish the rate of shipbuilding we would not be slow in acknowledging their lead and joining them in that movement. That offer has never been withdrawn. But the conditions of the case are more complicated and difficult now than they were a few years ago.
A few years ago it would have been sufficient if France and the United Kingdom had agreed mutually to diminish expenditure on shipbuilding, for in those days there were only two really great
1528
Navies—the Navies of France and the United Kingdom; but now the case is entirely changed, and there are more than half-a-dozen great naval Powers, some of them pressing on shipbuilding from year to year; and neither France nor the United Kingdom, however anxious they might be to curtail the rate of naval expenditure, could do so without considering the expenditure of other countries as well as their own mutual expenditure. What is the standard at which successive Governments have endeavoured to maintain our naval strength It has always been called the two-Power standard. Now I have looked back through the records of discussions on the subject in both Houses for some years, and I find that the date at which this standard may be said to have met with general acceptance was when Lord George Hamilton was First Lord of the Admiralty; and it is to that standard successive Governments have since worked.
Now what Lord George Hamilton really meant, and what the House of Commons meant, was that we should be prepared to face any two naval Powers with a reasonable probability of success. That was what the standard meant; and in those days the two next naval Powers were France and Italy, and as Italy was very friendly disposed towards us no one was anxious about the naval programme of Italy. The standard was convenient so far as battleships went, and it was possible to work to it, always bearing in mind that the strength should offer reasonable probability of victory, and that it should not be a mere arithmetical comparison. It has been a convenient standard for battleships; but in respect to cruisers and torpedo craft the standard has never had a real application, because the strength there must be in proportion to the work the Navy has to perform; and it has never been possible to assess that in proportion to tile cruisers and torpedo craft of the next two naval Powers. Our Board of Admiralty has before it a totally different naval problem from any which any other naval authority has to consider. The Admiralty of another country can concentrate its efforts on producing a formidable fleet of battleships, or it may make a leading feature of its strength cruisers to prey on the commerce of this

1529
or any other country with which that country might be at war, or it might direct its attention in other directions, such as the creation of a formidable Defence Mobile.
But this country has to consider much more. No other Admiralty in the world has to consider its Navy as the one safeguard of the country from invasion, or the fact that on the Navy depends the supply of food to the people. No other nation has to accept the responsibility of safeguarding so far as it may a vast preponderating ocean commerce or the shores of an Empire spread over continents and islands in all parts of the world. Our Navy is responsible for the safety of the whole Empire, to ensure reasonable immunity from invasion or raid. When you consider that is not an exaggerated statement of the functions the Board of Admiralty has to consider, I think I shall carry your Lordships with me when I say you cannot compare with any reason or fairness the naval expenditure of this country with that of any two or more Powers, because what our Navy has to do is totally different from what the navies of any one, two, or three other Powers have to do. There is an essential difference in the problem. And, although I welcome financial criticism and fully feel the importance of financial considerations, and agree that naval expenditure ought to be carefully scrutinised from the financial point of view, vet I do altogether deprecate a comparison of our naval expenditure with the naval expenditure of any two or three other naval Powers as the standard or basis of criticism.
It seems to me that it is quite possible to say that this country shall maintain a certain naval standard whatever the expenditure may be; that is quite possible, it has been quite possible, but it may cease to be possible in times to come. Or it is possible to say that the country will spend so much money and the Navy shall be as strong as it is possible to produce for that money. The country can take either of these courses. But what the Admiralty should not agree to accept is the responsibility of keeping up to a standard for which the money provided would not suffice. It is for the nation to decide whether at a given moment
1530
finance or the Navy is the more important, but do not attempt to deceive the nation by stating you are maintaining a standard when you have not asked for the money to do it. Lord Brassey has admitted in criticising the details of our shipbuilding policy that we must build battleships the most powerful that are built, and there is no difference of opinion between us there. He also said we ought to build a less costly type of battleship, that we should have two standards of battleships, battleships that are the most powerful and others less powerful; and there I differ from him. I do not see why we should spend money on comparatively inferior battleships. Time is automatically supplying comparatively inferior battleships, and why the Admiralty should hasten that automatic process and build ships which a generation hence will be still more out of date than those we have now I fail to see.
Now there must not be exaggeration about the way battleships pass out of date. Some misconception has been caused in this matter owing to the fact that our muzzle-loading ships are now out of date; but the same thing will not apply to breech-loading battleships. I take the "Nile" and "Trafalgar" as dating from the time of which Lord Brassey spoke. They are still valuable battleships of the second line, valuable reserve battleships, and I believe the battleships we are building now will be valuable battleships for the reserve line twenty-five years hence. Lord Ellen-borough made a useful suggestion that we should have in reserve war designs upon which ships could be more quickly built than modern ships can be. I will give the suggestion careful consideration, but I may point out that the difficulty in building battleships is not with the hull or armour; it is with the machinery and more particularly with the gun-mountings. It is the gun-mounting that limits the speed of construction. If gun-mountings could be turned out with the same speed as the hull then I think, given certain circumstances and the crisis, the time occupied in producing a battleship could be materially shortened.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I know that was the case once, but I thought we had got over it.
*THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No. The number of places where gun-mountings can be supplied are very limited. Armstrong and Vickers are the only firms in this country, I think, where the big gun-mountings are made, and, apart from the capacity of these two firths to turn out gun-mountings, the process itself is exceedingly slow and complicated. One word on the "Lord Nelson" type of battleship Intentioned in another place the alter day. We have endeavoured to avoid increasing the displacement. We have put on that displacement a very powerful armament—an armament of four 12-inch guns and ten 9·2 guns, and the speed will be the same as in all the later battleships, a little over eighteen knots. The cost is roughly a little more than that of the "King Edward" class. I regard that displacement and those proportions as about the limit which we are likely to reach, because if the displacement is largely increased you limit the number of ports and docks the vessel can use and the general utility of the ship is decreased.
I take this opportunity of deprecating the kinds of methods that are used in comparing our battleships or cruisers with the battleships and cruisers of other nations. It often appears that writers in newspapers and magazines forget that every warship is a compromise. It is an essential element that it should be a compromise; one feature is predominant in one ship, another feature will be found in another. No ship combines every feature in its highest degree. I saw the other day an instance of what I mean. When the German squadron was at Devonport I saw in one paper a review of their characteristics, and the conclusion of the writer was that this fleet of eight battleships was more powerful than either the Channel Fleet or the Home Fleet. I am not going to discuss here the comparative merits of our own individual fleets and the corresponding foreign fleets, but what I want to draw attention to is the process by which this conclusion was arrived at. There was a very inadequate examination of any of the qualities of the ships possessed by either the Germans or the British except the number of guns; and the whole of the argument was really based on the fact that, speaking broadly,
1532
each of these German ships carried eighteen 6-inch guns, whereas twelve was the number carried in the British ships.
Anybody who did not know the subject might have read that article from end to end and never would have guessed this somewhat important fact—that, whereas every ship of the Channel Fleet had four 12-inch guns—that is, thirty-two 12-inch guns in the Fleet—and four ships of the Home Fleet had four 13½-inch guns each, two others four 12-inch guns each, and two others four 10-inch guns, each, there was not a single gun in the-whole of the German Fleet above 9·4-inch in calibre. That was to say, the Channel Fleet had thirty-two 12-inch guns against thirty-two 9·4-inch guns of the German Fleet, and our Home Fleet had sixteen 13½-inch guns, eight 12-inch guns, and eight 10-inch guns against the thirty-two 9·4-inch guns of the German fleet. It is therefore of no assistance to the corn-parison of naval architecture to approach the subject in that kind of exceedingly-unscientific spirit. Lord Brassey has so kindly expressed his concurrence. with the policy of the armoured cruisers that I will only repeat the information given in another place, that the new class of armoured cruisers—the "Minotaur" class—will carry an armament of 9·2 guns and 7½-inch guns and steam at twenty-three knots.
I now come to a class which has been. a great deal criticised by Lord Brassey and in the Press—what is known as the "Scout" class. It has been said that they are wanting in coal endurance and that as destroyers they are too large. Now, is their coal endurance inadequate for the duties which they have been created to perform? Remember the Admiralty in one sense made an experiment. We desired to give the great firms in this country an opportunity of showing what they could produce, given certain conditions, without the initiative of the Director of Naval Construction, and we went to four of the leading firms and said, "This is the kind of ship we want; make your own design." Each of the, four firms supplied two of the scouts. They differ somewhat in characteristics but, roughly, this is their average coal endurance: At 12 knots, 2,500 nautical miles; at 20 knots, 1,000 nautical miles;

1533
and at 25 knots,600 nautical miles. I must not be understood to say that that is a test, because they are only tried for eight hours at 25 knots, and it would not be fair to say that they were always able to do continuous sea steaming at 25 knots for 600 miles, but the coal they carry would suffice for that distance at that speed.
There never was any idea of creating the scout class as destroyers of destroyers. They have been given armament to enable them to tight the only vessels fast enough to catch them, which are the destroyers; but the genesis of this class was the desire to meet the demands of the admirals commanding the manœuvring fleets. None of the old unarmoured cruisers or mercantile auxiliaries could come up to the speed of 25 knots on emergencies like the scouts, and cruisers are more expensive ships. We have to hand a case where the scouts would in my estimation be of great value. Admiral Togo would indeed be gratified if he had some of these vessels at his disposal. It would be improper for me to discuss a war between two friendly Powers, but the general situation to which I may refer is known to the whole world. There is a port in which there is a powerful fleet, and another powerful fleet lies at a considerable distance from that port ready to move at a moment's notice, and it relies for its information on scouts lying off the blockaded port. The whole issue of a war might depend on any admiral in a similar position getting information early enough of any movement of the fleet in the blockaded port. For such a purpose I can imagine nothing better adapted than the scout class.
I should like to refer to the submarine class, although it was not mentioned by Lord Brassey. Public attention was lately riveted on the submarine by the deplorable accident which happened off Portsmouth to Submarine A 1. In the opinion of the Admiralty, the value of submarines for defensive purposes is abundantly proved, and for offensive defence—the defence, for example, of our shores in the case of attempted invasion—they are a great addition to our national security. What further development may be in store for this class of ship I am not prepared to say. I am certainly not prepared to say we have reached the
1534
limit of the uses to which experience may show they can be put. I hope the public will not think they are dangerous to officers and men. I do not believe that the risks of navigating this class are in any kind different from those involved in the navigation of torpedo boats or destroyers, which at night or in crowded waters must always run a certain amount of risk, and I think the increase in degree practically nil. The safety of the submarine, as of the torpedo boat, depends on the nerve and skill of the officers. That is the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, and I am allowed by the parent of an officer now serving in a submarine, who is himself in a position to speak authoritatively on all naval questions, which he follows with keen interest, to say that this accurately describes the state of the case. All proper precautions should always be used. Manœuvres must continue; but every opportunity should be taken to warn the mercantile marine where these submarines are at work.
One word on the question of boilers. Two years ago, referring to Belleville boilers, I said that if properly manufactured and if properly managed they were able to fulfil the requirements of the Navy, and would not fail in time of war on those conditions. All that has happened since has confirmed me in that opinion, but it has also confirmed me in the opinion which I then added, that this boiler is too delicate an instrument for the rough-and tumble work of the Navy. That is my firm conviction now. But although the ships which have Belleville boilers have not failed their admirals, I regret to say that the cost of the repairs of these boilers has been very serious indeed, and I should never myself be responsible for putting in any more of these boilers, not because I think they would fail in a time of emergency, but because I think they are too expensive to the taxpayers of the country. The boilers which the Committee finally recommended, and which the Admiralty have adopted, are much simpler in construction and much easier to examine and keep in order; and the Admiralty have good reason to believe that they will cost far less in repairs than the Belleville boilers. But I must protest against a phrase which was used in another place, that the Admiralty have recklessly turned the Navy into a gigantic

1535
experiment in the matter of boilers. We had, of course, experiments on a large scale, because in no other way could we find out what was the best boiler for the Navy. But we have not put into one single ship of the Navy any boiler which we did not believe would serve that ship faithfully in time of war.
As to the cost of naval works. I am well aware how serious is the sum which Parliament has authorised to be expended on these works. But the reason of this great expenditure is that these naval works have been neglected for nearly two generations. If Parliament had, from year to year during the last half century, done what was necessary, this great expenditure in the last ten years to overtake arrears would not have been necessary. I submit that all that has transpired in the present war shows how essential it is that the Navy should be equipped with these works. In a naval war a country may have the ships and the men, but if she has no place where the ships can be repaired, renovated, and sent to sea again, she may well be defeated by an enemy with an inferior force but provident enough to have provided her navy with all those works so essentially necessary to keep a fleet in being in modern naval warfare. The whole of the expenditure on naval works has been of two classes—in providing proper accommodation for the men of the Fleet either in barracks or hospitals, and for the ships of the Fleet in docks, with the workshops by which they can be repaired, and in providing harbours where they can repair, refit, revictual, or recoal without molestation; and I do not believe that any one of these provisions has been ill-advised. I cannot admit what Lord Brassey said about Simon's Bay. Simon's Bay is a very important spot in the Empire, from the point of view of naval strategy. If the Suez Canal were closed, it would be difficult to exaggerate its importance, and when Lord Goschen's Board agreed to the spending of this large sum of money on works in Simon's Bay, I have no doubt but that they adopted the plan which would give the Navy what was required in the most efficient way, and with the least expense.
What are the great lessons which are taught by the present war? The first
1536
is the importance of the personnel. The officers and the men are of more importance than the ships, and that is the greatest justification of the policy of the Admiralty in years past in asking Parliament to provide us with so large a number of active service ratings. There must, of course, be a limit to the expansion of the active service ratings. Further expansion must be in the Reserve; and the Admiralty have done their best to increase the Reserves not merely at home but in the Colonies. Lord Goschen's Board started the way in Newfoundland; we have followed in the Commonwealth of Australia. New Zealand, and Malta. In addition to that, we have started the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. It is too soon to speak of how it has turned out, but I can say that it promises well. The second lesson which I deduce from the war is that we must have a margin of strength. It is plain, I think, to those who have followed the war how much turns on the existence or non-existence of a margin of strength; and I am quite sure that those who realise what a naval war must mean to this country know that the two-Power standard, properly interpreted, means a reasonable assurance of victory, and that reasonable assurance of victory predicates a margin over strict numerical equality. The question is sometimes asked, have the experiences of this war shown that battleships are out of date? Have the mine and the torpedo relegated the battleship from the leading place it has occupied ever since modern naval war began? I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. No lesson is more surely written across the pages of the history of the present war, so far as it has progressed, than that without the battleship no Power can hold or win the command of the sea. I do not ask you to take this opinion from me. I will conclude by reading an extract from an article by Captain Mahan in the New York Sun of 11th May this year, on the question of the survival of the battleship, viz.—
"Power so concentrated, if equally well handled, will always prevail—not only against an equal amount, but even against a decidedly superior amount dispersed among several. This is elementary military experience; appearing in another form in the commonly understood virtues of central position, interior lines, massed forces, and single command. This is, in brief,

1537
the argument for the battleship; single and concentrated force. There is further the utterly unappreciated, in fact wholly ignored, factor of economy. It is much more expensive to put the same aggregate tonnage into two ships than into one. Speaking within limits, you get less military efficiency at higher cost. You need two captains for one; nearly twice as many officers; and crews which, while they may not be the double of the one ship, will exceed it by a very large percentage. And the more you divide your tonnage—say ten or twenty torpedo vessels for one battleship—the greater the economical loss. This was the fatal economical error of Jefferson's seductive cheap gunboat policy, a measure which insured a minimum of military usefulness at a maximum of pecuniary outlay. In my opinion nothing has occurred so far in this present war to confirm the opinion that torpedo attacks by small vessels against battleships will be frequently succcessful. However, even as a matter of mere good luck, success at times must be expected; hence it is desirable so to regulate the size of the battleship that the loss of one may not be excessively felt. It will be impossible to contest control of the sea with vessels exempt by their draught from torpedo injury; and control of the sea is the one thing needful. For the most part, attack by torpedo vessels will be confined to coasts and the neighbourhood of ports, where they will generally be encountered, and in measure checked, by vessels of their own class."
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I think the House ought to be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brassey, not only for his own interesting speech, but for the very instructive and important statement which he has elicited from the First Lord of the Admiralty. I feel that we have been a little remiss in not having given the noble Earl an opportunity of making a statement such as he has made to-night at an earlier period of the session. I am not prepared to deal with the noble Earl's statement beyond referring to a few points. I am aware how important it is that the Fleet should have ships to scout for it, but I think that torpedo-boat destroyers, while admirably suited for work in narrow channels, were not intended to accompany a great fleet to sea. With regard to the question of boilers, when I was at the head of the Admiralty my Board were responsible for introducing the water-tube boilers. They introduced the Belleville boilers; and, although that particular class of boiler may be too delicate and expensive, yet I am glad to see that the recent Report shows that the principle of water-tube boilers is a right one, and of great advantage to the Navy. Turn-
1538
ing to the question of the two-Power standard, I entirely agree that we are not in the same position as other countries, but the noble Lord seems to consider that the enormous extent of our trade and the number of our colonies are the main factors which should regulate the standard.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said I believed these to be most important duties that the Admiralty had to consider which foreign countries had not to consider.
EARL SPENCER: I agree, but I thought the noble Lord had dwelt too much on that aspect of the matter. What we have principally to consider is where our enemies' ships will be, and what ships they will have. I am not quite certain whether the two-Power standard is a good one to go by. No doubt circumstances have changed in the last twenty years, but I think such tremendous strides have been taken that we have almost exceeded what was right and necessary. It behoves the Government, and every Government, to be very careful not to exceed what is actually necessary. I should be very much against trying to build two kinds of battleships, and I think that what the First Lord has said on this subject is eminently right. Besides the size, speed, and armament of battleships, a point of great importance for our consideration in the construction of battleships is coal endurance. In regard to naval works I feel some responsibility, inasmuch as when I presided over the Board of Admiralty naval works were commenced which since, I am afraid, have grown to a very great degree. But we found that the old-fashioned roads where ships of war used to assemble were absolutely dangerous in view of the possibility of modern torpedo attacks. I am unable to say whether the extension of naval works since that date has gone too far, but I do think that the time has come when some halt should be called in the enormous expenditure that is now taking place.

SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
POST OFFICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to order) and passed.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report of the Select Committee. Considered (according to order), and agreed to.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 188.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Four o'clock.